Great presentation but you over-looked one thing. Luke's account is automatically wrong because it's in the Bible and Jesephus is automatically right because he's not. That's how modern arm-chair history works.
MAN you did some heavy lifting on this video. Good Work! We very much appreciate what you do on this channel and informing us with great information. God Bless!
amen my friend may your ways reflect Jesus' desires for you may you have love, mercy, forgiveness and patience with others, even those you may deem enemies (not that we should see people as enemies but rather lost souls in need of Jesus that we should try and help (if beneficial) and pray for)
@J H if you actually read them yourself and not just trust what someone else tells you about them. Source verification. It's a real thing. It's actually really important, too, but people are lazy
@J H they don't conflict, they were just written by different people. Whenever multiple people witness the same event, there's always going to be minor variances within the retelling of the event. That's normal. Any good investigator will tell you that if multiple eyewitnesses report what they saw, and all of their stories mesh perfectly in every detail, then a collusion is suspected to be taking place. Another thing to consider is that the four gospel writers are portraying Jesus in different aspects and for different audiences. For example, Matthew wrote his gospel for the Jewish audience. That's why the majority of everything Jesus did was pointed out as a fulfillment of earlier prophecies concerning their coming Messiah. Mark emphasized Jesus' servanthood. Luke emphasized His Humanity, and John, written to the church, focused on Jesus as being God, or His divinity. They all mesh to give a fuller and more well-rounded aspect to Jesus' story. Any and all presumed contradictions throughout the Word of God will show to not be contradictions at all when studied out thoroughly. God promised that He would preserve His Word and that it would last forever. If He couldn't do that, then He's not God. All the claims of the Bible being corrupted or parts left out or added later have been circulating for many years, but they're just as false today as they ever have been.
@@PEACE2U-ALL But we know that Matthew and Luke used Mark as their main source and copied from Mark often word for word. Oh... I read the rest of your post... you are a fundie conspiracy theorist who rejects the consensus of the experts.😅
@@ramigilneas9274 I won't waste your time with the Matthew, Mark, and Luke thing since you already "know" all about them. If the truth ever tries to come around and throw you off, hit it with a laughing emoji and go back to sleep.
Ancient history can be confusing because they didn't use exact dates. It's not like today when we can say, "On April 17, 1978, ____ happened." (No idea if anything significant happened on that date, just an example). The dating systems back then were much more messy for many reasons. So when people recorded events, it could have been all over the place as to when it happened. This could make it look like one event happened multiple times, or multiple events with very specific similarities happened. It doesn't matter when it happened, just that it happened. (by the way, Acts 5 also reports Judas' uprising "in the days of the census".). The only reason to discredit Luke's two accounts is because of a bias against the Bible.
Reasons why ancient dating was messy: 1.) They didn't have as refined calendars. Noted that they did have calendar cycles, but it operated much differently. For one, it changed from region to region. Some areas (like the middle-east) used lunar-based year cycles (calendars), while others used solar/star-based year cycles like we do today. Because of this, how many days where in a year wasn't universally agreed on (because they would base it generally, not exactly). For example, I believe the Babylonians used 360 days/year instead of 365.25 (thus why a circle has up 360 degrees). Shaving 5.25 days off every year could change an event from 300 years ago to 304 years ago. 2) Every culture had a different time when their year-cycle began. So new-years day in Israel could have been day 280 of the year on a Roman calendar. So if an event happened one year in Israel, it could have been considered a different year in Rome (even though it was the same day). 3.) Different cultures had different standards on when a day began. So in Israel, the new day begins at sundown, while we begin a new day at midnight (some ancient cultures may have started the new day at sunrise). This may seem like a mild factor, but if something happened at night, does it get dated the day before, or the day after it happened? Two different cultures could call it a different day, and if they also disagree with the different year, then that's worse. 4.) Years were primarily counted based on the years of a king. "In the seventh year of Harod, ..." for example. This could multiply reasons why it gets messy. A.) If a king rose to power mid-year, is it considered his first year, or is the next year considered his first year? B.) Do you start saying "2nd year" at the anniversary of the king's inauguration, or at the beginning of the new year? C.) Add the problems of 1, 2, and 3, and you've got the first year of a king in his region overlapping with the third year of the same king in the eyes of another culture. 5.) Building off of 4, multiple different king's rule different regions at the same time. So region A says, "1st year of our king!", and region B says, "5th year of our king!" But if region C identifies a specific event of region A's king (in the first year) as the third year, and region D identifies the same event in region B's king, but on the 4th year, then did the event happen the first year of King A, 3rd year of King A, 4th year of King B, or 5th year of King B? Now, in the 6th year of King B, a new king arose in region C. If A1=B5 and B6=C1, then A2=C1. Or do these cultural identifiers make it so A3=B4, and B7=C1? (in which case A6=C1). All of this combined could make it so over the course of documenting many kings and generations, an even could move many years in time-frame. All of the sources were originally true from their own cultural understanding of time, but the math may not add up.
@@5BBassist4Christ thanks for saying it before I did!😅 between lunar calendars, solar calendars, 13 months or 12 months or 10 months in a year and the added dumpster fire that was records keeping 2k years ago, I'm honestly shocked anyone got within 10 years of an accurate time frame for what to them was some random Jewish carpenter's kid in a massive international empire, especially when you consider that just a couple of hundred years ago, an accurate birth date and year for a random European kid was pretty sketchy.
@@azurephoenix9546 Calculating between different calendars is so tricky. I had to give up calculating the Daniel Prophecy regarding the death of the Messiah. Yes, I've heard others say the calculated fulfillment is Jesus' Triumphal entry in 30 A.D., others say the same event but in 33 A.D.. After calculating the death of Jesus (likely in 33 A.D.), I was curious to calculate it myself. I had to give up, because calculating 400+ year prophecy from either the Persian or the Jewish Calendar, converting the start date to the end date in the Julian Calendar just got too confusing. It was to the point where the number of days in leap-year between the Jewish calendar and modern calendar got too confusing, because the earth actually goes around the sun once every 365.26 days, not .25.
@@5BBassist4Christ Actually, Daniel 9 deals in sevens of years - the difference in various years is highly inconsequential, especially if one takes into account that lunar years were supplemented by leap months - hence the difference can at worst be a month - but Daniel 9 doesn't deal in months but only seven-year-periods and, at one point, half of such a period. The idea that one has to transform one sort of year into another sort of year is already wrongheaded and the basis for much manipulation.
I'm partial to this explanation from the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible. Here's a portion of it for any interested: "The role of Quirinius is perhaps the most difficult detail to interpret in Luke's narrative (Lk 2:2). It is well established that he initiated a taxation census soon after he was appointed the provincial legate of Syria in A.D. 6. Yet evidence is lacking that he held this position more than once or that he ever conducted more than one census. How, then, can Luke associate Quirinius with a census that occurred many years earlier, when Jesus was born? The most helpful clue might be found in Luke's own words. The Greek expression that he uses in Lk 2:2 for the governing role of Quirinius is the exact description he uses for Pontius Pilate's governing role in Lk 3:1. Since Pilate 'governed' as a regional procurator and was not the legate of an entire Roman province (like Syria), it leaves open the possibility that Luke is referring to an administrative role assumed by Quirinius that had nothing to do with his later position as an imperial legate. This possibility is strengthened by the Church Father Justin Martyr, who states that Quirinius was a 'procurator' in Judea (not Syria) at the time of Jesus' birth! It likewise enables us to make greater sense of the testimony of another early Christian writer, Tertullian, who says that Saturninus (not Quirinius) was the official legate of Syria at the time of the Nativity. It may be that Quirinius was an administrator of a Judean census (i.e., the 3 B.C. oath-registration) several years before conducting another census for taxation in A.D. 6." The ICSB, after having addressed both the death of Herod (which it places in "early spring of 1 B.C., soon after a lunar eclipse in January of that year") and Caesar's decree (which it argues was actually an empire-wide public oath-swearing registration where all swore allegiance to Caesar Augustus as "Father" of the Empire, which Caesar Augustus's own writings date to around 2 B.C.), places the date of Jesus's birth to between 3 and 2 B.C. "Although there are gaps in this reconstruction, and much remains uncertain, the cumulative force of the evidence is significant. Herod's death, Caesar's decree, and the governing position of Quirinius are all historical factors that, when reconsidered, yield a more coherent portrait of the events surrounding the Nativity. This would mean that Jesus was born between 3 and 2 B.C., the enrollment of Joseph and Mary was a registration of their loyalty to the Roman Caesar, and the documentation of this oath was organized and implemented in Judea by Quirinius several years before he was made the official governor of Syria. This reconstruction not only eases the chronological tensions in Lk 2:1-2, it helps to confirm Luke's reliability as a historian as well as the early Church's reliability as a channel of historical traditions."
"Leave Judea, go to Antioch, then go to Caesarea to meet Archelaus, tell Sabinus to not seize Herod's estate, then return to Antioch, but then probably go to Judea with more than one legion to quell rebellions, then leave Judea before Sabinus arrived from Caesarea to seize Herod's estate, go to the pub, have a nice cold pint, and wait for this all to blow over!"
@@chronographer not really, lol. There are harmonizations by numerous scholars that are logical and straightforward. Besides that, most of the details in the accounts aren't actually contradictory if you read carefully - what one says does not preclude the other's being true (if one says there were three women at the tomb, those were just the women chosen for the author's account, but there was likely at least 5 women altogether). Besides, this is precisely what makes them more historically reliable as sources. Were they colluding to falsify an event we'd expect the stories to be exactly the same, point for point, same order of people and same order of events, etc.
@@johnnybrave7443 I think we need to take into account that they had a harder time getting all details right, no matter if it was Luke or Josephus. Luke also claims to have gathered the info to get the data as right as possible... so there is a chance Luke got it right... the content of this video is really interesting.
Jesus the good sovereign lord loves you may youre ways be of Jesus the good loving lord, may you have forgiveness, care, mercy, patience, and God's hope with you always :" ) our God is good and true
It's also worth pointing out that Josephus's focus was on compiling a general history of the region whereas Luke was interviewing eyewitnesses, likely including Mary herself, and record keepers to get a precise timeline of the life of the Son of God.
@@tomasrocha6139 probably because it was to a gentile audience who would really care for such detail, and using logic it’s obvious Mary was interviewed by Luke 😭
@@tomasrocha6139 the creator of this video has already debunked what I just said but to be precise 1.) the statement “Augustus ceaser wanted to tax the world” doesn’t necessarily mean he taxed it all at once and 2.) there’s no proof that a.)they didn’t go back to their home towns (arguement from silence) and b.)there’s proof Egypt carried out a similar task 140 years later so why counting Herod do the same?
@@tomasrocha6139 watch inspiring philosophy’s and testify studies about the census they’ll answer ur questions and are far more educated about it than me
@@andys3035 in otherwords, Josephus' timing and wording shows that he misinterpreted quirinius' timing leading to Luke being more likely to be accurate (as shown through his impeccable accuracy in the bible and the sheer amount of inaccuracy in josephus' account) simply showing that the bible is accurate always, even in the smallest details
@@privatprivat7279 (i wrote this rn to another person but i can paste it to you since you sound like you are curious aswell 😊) in otherwords, Josephus' timing and wording shows that he misinterpreted quirinius' timing leading to Luke being more likely to be accurate (as shown through his impeccable accuracy in the bible and the sheer amount of inaccuracy in josephus' account) simply showing that the bible is accurate always, even in the smallest details
Just found out about IP, I’ve watched so many of these, they’re great. I’m an Orthodox Christian and these videos have made me really appreciate Christianity more
As always, this is a great demonstration of the effort and seriousness in which you conduct this channel. Great video, it is sometimes hard to follow, yet it is really interesting.
Why do modern people assume that people in the past are stupid or less skeptical? People living closer to the events would have pointed out Luke's error if it was so obvious?
Obviously… I really don’t get it. If my brother wrote about what president/ event happened at my birth, and it contradicts what my mother and everyone else said what happened, or if my sister told him that stuff didn’t happen at my birth, and it was some big goofy mess up, people would know….
And again it’s a pretty big blatant claim, and people then who would have been ALIVE accepted it, and since Luke interviewed people, some would surely talk about the census
Because a lot of modern people were indoctrinated into the stupid Victorian notion that intelligence was invented at around the same time things like scientific racism "saved us" from Christianity. Anything prior to degenerates like Voltaire is stupid according to arm chair historians and disingenous 'scholars'.
@@tomasrocha6139 Lets start with the first eyewitnesses are Zechariah and Mary. Luke says he has eyewitnesses and then tells you events pertaining to people. What more do you need? Stop inventing hurdles and seek Jesus as I did when i could run away no further.
@@tomasrocha6139 Luke 1 King James Version 1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; Try reading for yourself instead of being lead by the other armchair experts...This is the very first 2 verses. My guess is that you will edit your post.
"The more I have studied the narrative of the Acts, and the more I have learned year after year about Graeco-Roman society and thoughts and fashions, and organization in those provinces, the more I admire and the better I understand. I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it here. You may press the words of Luke in a degree far beyond any other historian’s, and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment, provided always that the critic knows the subject and does not go beyond the limits of science and of justice. Too often, when one reads some foolish criticism, the words of Shakespeare rise in one’s memory, that here is 'folly doctor-like controlling skill' ", Sir William Ramsey, "The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament", p89. "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense; he fixes his mind on the idea and plan that rules in the evolution of history; and proportions the scale of his treatment to the importance of each incident. He seizes the important and critical events and shows their true nature at greater length, while he touches lightly or omits entirely much that was valueless for his purpose. In short, this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians", Sir William Ramsey, "The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament", p222.
I'm curious as to why did one of a kind census take place? Making everyone moved back to their ancestral homes for the census served no purposes other than fulfilling a prophecy.
It never hapoened as a census took place where you lived now. The Romans were practical people. The greek namekess texts which later modified and we refer to as Luke is a liiterary construct in which we find unmarked text elements from Marc and Matthew. In all context is that theft and fraud to take the work if others and claim them to be yours.
They were required to return to their homes. Not their ancestral homes. This was for tax purposes. Going back to the ancestral home has no historical plausibility.
Archaeologists have a Roman document from about 104 AD telling people to got to their homes for a census. I will quote it. You can also google it. It came from the Egyptian area. "Gaius Vibius Maximus, prefect of Egypt, says: With the house to house registration having begun, it is necessary that all who, for whatever reason, are living away from home (apodēmousin) from their administrative districts (nomōn) are summoned to return to their own hearths (ephestia) " This is only a part of a translation.
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. Here's another take on the census dates for you- Regarding the census cited in Acts 5:37, there is strong evidence of a census being conducted in Judea in 6CE, 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 1BCE to 4CE (Schürer, pp 354-357). In 4-5CE, though, Volusius Saturninus was governor of Syria. Josephus tells us that Quirinius assumed the governorship of Syria in 6CE 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 3BCE until at least 2BCE (and possibly as late as 4CE) 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 2BCE. 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.
I really like your videos, and I think you are making a great argument here, but Quirinius is a well-documented person, that was held in high esteem and we know plenty of details about his career. His full name was Publius Sulpicius Quirinius and he was from Lanuvium. I can't find any Sabine connection or a Sabinus agnomen/cognomen for him attested somewhere. He was leading campaigns in central Asian Minor from 12 BC to 1BC against a local tribe (Homonadensians). By then he was already of proconsular rank and of very high status. We can make an assumption, I guess, that parallel to his other duties, he was entrusted with organizing the census in the lands of Herod. We can even take it further and make the assumption that this was the reason that Augustus trusted him and honored him in 1AD with the tutelage of his heir (his young nephew, Gaius Caesar). But I think he was a distinct person from Sabinus. I like the argument you made about having to be of consular rank for him to ignore Varus, so my guess would be Gaius Calvisius Sabinus, consul 4 BC.
This shows just how biased biblical skeptics are nowadays, these people will trust anything BUT the gospels, it doesn't matter if they were written at a later date or if they're full of chronological errors, they still somehow put them above the gospels.
The writers of the Bible are not wrong that (ancient Israelites) participated in Baal worship. Some sects of Judaism still participate in Baal worship, even today. The death of ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ was the ultimate blood sacrifice to end (sacramental religious barbaric customs). Sadly, certain Jews still wanted to go back to their old ways of worship.
Most people do not realize that the census of 6 AD was the first census that could have affected Joseph because it was the first registration of all taxpayers in the province (and Luke writes that it was the first registration for a reason). All the censuses that had been taken before (including the three mentioned in Augustus' Res Gestae) were censuses that registered only Roman citizens, that is, inhabitants of the empire who possessed the Civitas Romana. Joseph was certainly not a Roman citizen. For Roman citizenship was granted only in exceptional cases. The governor of Syria was not responsible for Judea until 6 AD, after Judea had been incorporated into the Roman protectorate of Syria, which demonstrably did not take place until 6 AD after Archelaus had been deposed. This is the only reason why Luke's mention of Quirinius makes any sense at all.
This explanation seems pretty weak to me, for many reasons. For one, the idea (at 34:15) that Luke was using 'hegemon' to denote some lower rank (i.e., NOT legatus agusti) has been used before to try to resolve this contradiction, and it brings in a host of problems (for example, Luke also uses 'hegemon' to describe Pontius Pilate, but it seems highly unlikely that Luke was not calling Pilate the governor). The association with Syria is also important: the verse doesn't just say Quirinius was a 'hegemon' but specifically 'of Syria'. If Luke did not mean for this to imply a governorship, it seems a strain to imagine what he was trying to communicate: that Quirinius held an office specific to Syria... but *not* procurator? It's also worth pointing out that this same language is used by Justin Martyr who describes Quirinius' census as happening while Quirinius was the first procurator of Syria (the theory proposed by this video would have us rewrite this description as well). To top off the strength of this interpretation, Luke's mentioning of Quirinius' governorship of Syria makes complete sense in context: it was only after Judea became part of the province of Syria (AD 6) that it would be natural to date events happening in Judea by the name of the governor of Syria. Why would Luke date an event by (a) an office in Syria (where it did not take place) and (b) a lower office (not procurator)? It's like dating an event in San Francisco by saying "This happened while John Smith was (a) Secretary of the State of Nevada", rather than "This happened while John Smith was governor of California".
//This explanation seems pretty weak to me, for many reasons. For one, the idea (at 34:15) that Luke was using 'hegemon' to denote some lower rank (i.e., NOT legatus agusti) has been used before to try to resolve this contradiction, and it brings in a host of problems (for example, Luke also uses 'hegemon' to describe Pontius Pilate, but it seems highly unlikely that Luke was not calling Pilate the governor). The association with Syria is also important: the verse doesn't just say Quirinius was a 'hegemon' but specifically 'of Syria'. If Luke did not mean for this to imply a governorship, it seems a strain to imagine what he was trying to communicate: that Quirinius held an office specific to Syria... but not procurator? It's also worth pointing out that this same language is used by Justin Martyr who describes Quirinius' census as happening while Quirinius was the first procurator of Syria (the theory proposed by this video would have us rewrite this description as well).// It's not necessarily a lower rank. In Josephus' narration, Sabinus is clearly of an equal rank as Varus since he ignores his orders. Procurator was a rank of which there were multiple offices including Governor and Censor. Josephus also uses the word "hegemon" to describe a multitude of positions, not just the regional governor. Luke would refer to Quirinius as a hegemon because that was his rank and his position at the time was head of the registry taking place in Judea. So Quirinius was a procurator, though not governor specifically, and he was assigned specifically to the region of Syria. //To top off the strength of this interpretation, Luke's mentioning of Quirinius' governorship of Syria makes complete sense in context: it was only after Judea became part of the province of Syria (AD 6) that it would be natural to date events happening in Judea by the name of the governor of Syria. Why would Luke date an event by (a) an office in Syria (where it did not take place) and (b) a lower office (not procurator)? It's like dating an event in San Francisco by saying "This happened while John Smith was (a) Secretary of the State of Nevada", rather than "This happened while John Smith was governor of California".// This ignores Luke 1, where he clearly states that Mary and Elizabeth conceived during the reign of Herod the Great, and Luke 3 where he associates Jesus and John the Baptist's ministries with Archelaus and Philip being in charge. We also know from Acts 5 that Luke was aware of the controversy surrounding Judas the Galilean, who Josephus associates with the 6 AD census. Clearly Luke associates Jesus' birth with Herod the Great and isn't confusing him with Archelaus and he also likely knows about the 6 AD census. He'd have to be a complete idiot to be talking about the 6 AD census with respect to Quirinius, which would be an uncharacteristic mistake for Luke to make. Judea is in the Roman province of Syria. Also, Herod the Great lost the power to tax his kingdom directly for a short time near the end of his life though he eventually returned to good standing. Luke doesn't refer to Quirinius by a lower rank. He also doesn't say the registry is a tax. It could easily be a registry associated with the senate's vote to name Augustus _Pater Patriae_ in 2 BC. Recent Scholarship has also challenged dating Herod's death to 4 BC, noting he could also have died in 1 BC.
The problem I have heard from various people is: "Why did Mary and Joseph have to go to Bethlehem to be counted? This makes no sense as it would have been easier to count them if they stayed at home. The reason given in Luke would surely have involved a simultaneous upheaval for a significant proportion of the Jewish people. Chaos would be the likely end result. It is just a device to make sure Jesus fulfils a prophecy in the Old Testament." I never know what to say to this. Any ideas?
Romans needed to conduct the census because they taxed people based on their capital- their private property. The Jews, who had a compound religious text and Constitution, the Torah, did not believe in private property, and taxed based on income. In order to tax the Jew(daean)s, who had just become part of Rome based on Herod the Great's will (Herod wanted his sister and three of his sons to rule the tetrarchy- Archelaus: Judaea, Salome: Jamnia, Antipas: Galilee/Perea, Philip: Batanea. When they died, their realm was ceded to Rome), the Jews were commanded to join their families in their ancestral homeland to tax them.
You hadn't told us you'd created a new video. Not a bad job and certainly more detailed than your previous endeavor. I imagine we'll have some questions/answers in the coming weeks. As always, thanks for the cordiality. Oh and we should note: we don't automatically assume Luke is wrong about everything simply because its in the Bible. Hell, we don't assume it at all.
Hey IP love your work! Here’s something that I struggled with but solved on my own. Mathew 27 in reference to Zachariah/Jeremiah in regards to “the potter”. This is something I’ve seen many believers struggle with and I would love to see your perspective and research on this topic. Thanks God Bless
32:30 Also, didn't Herod the Great have a habit of killing the high priests towards the end of his reign on a regular basis (as happened to Zechariah according to the Protoevangelium of James)?
@@DavidBlagic156945 Yeah. It seems strange that a high priest who was alive during a time where priests were systematically killed would all of a sudden repeat the same events 10 years later.
@Computing The Soul “ Also, didn't Herod the Great have a habit of killing the high priests towards the end of his reign on a regular basis” Good Lord, was Herod absolutely insane or something?
@@InspiringPhilosophy Oh.. I saw a comment from an atheist who claims that the 6 AD dating for the census of quirinius was based not only on josephus but also on other historic sources.
I hope IP does another “Jesus vs.” video. I know they’re probably repetitive at this point, but I learn so much from them. I would love to see Jesus win against Prometheus and Esus.
When King Herod died, Emperor Augustus and Queen Livia presented Herod's lastwill, and according to which Herod had bequeathed to them ten thousand pieces of silver sestertii, which was about half the all wealth of Judea. Under the control of Gaius Caesar and his tutor Publius Quirinius, Procurator Sabinus, Augustus' treasurer in Syria, was sent to gather these ten thousand pieces of silver sestertii from Judea to the emperor. And this occurred about 8-10 years before the famous census of Quirinius in 6 CE.
The KJV says the census happened during Herod, but the tax didn’t go into effect until Quirinius. Thoughts? If we just use the KJV, then Luke and Josephus are both right.
Michael, just a random question: could it be possible that there were two censuses instead of only one? I mean, given that Luke speaks for the census around the time of Christ's birth as the "first" and later, Luke himself, in Acts 5:36-37, mentioned two rebels (Theudas and Judas the Galilean) in two different rebellions, during "the days of the census"?
Good catch. The Greek text of Luke 2:2 has _"apographe protos"_ which means "first census." Acts 5v37 could be referring to the same census or to a second census in 6 AD.
For this reason, I’ve always thought he was describing a less important census than the one in AD 6. The “first” census. And of course, Quirinius was in Syria and was basically governing it around 4BC. So, a straightforward reading could be correct. But IP makes a good case that this was a possibility too
That's very much possible. Also, I wish everyone would dispense with the word "census" in this context as it quite clearly was not a census (a registration of Roman citizens). Luke also uses neither the word "census" nor does he say anything about taxes or other financial purposes (as opposed to Josephus).
@@claymcdermott718 A 4 BC registration however does not solve matters at all as Herod died early in 4 BC and the Holy Family fled to Egypt while Herod was still alive, some while after the registration.
Nope not an atheist. Firm Believer. They put because i don't find Fake Falk's humor funny. Then they call you a troll when you call them out and roll their eyes... Haha yeah. They're such 'good' people. They can't legit take on Patterns of Evidence Exodus so they mock it. It's rather pathetic. But i think it's necessary to point that out for a more critically thinking audience lest they be deluded. 'You're no fun' is their response. Frankly, Scarlett, i don't give a beaver's tail nor its dam... Haha
Even if the census did take place during Herod the great, the question still remains, when was Quirinius appointed as Legate (governor) of Syria? Putting aside what Josephus said, we also know that prior to his appointment, Quirinius also served as Rector (mentor/guide) to the grandson of Augustus Caesar, Gaius Caesar. Gaius Caesar was wounded around the end of 3AD and died around the beginning of 4AD. Quirinius was only appointed as Legate after Gaius' death. So that would still be around 4 - 6 AD. And Luke mentions clearly that the census took place "when Quirinius was governor of Syria". Quirinius only became governor of Syria after Gaius' death. So Luke had to have been referring to the period of 4 - 6 AD. 34:18 Would Quirinius have had the authority to conduct a census while not being governor? If he wasn't the governor when the census was conducted, who was? And why would that person have stepped aside and not taken on the duty of conducting the census, instead leaving it to Quirinius?
Isn't the fact that Quirinius became governor after Gaius' death only recorded by Josephus. As far as I'm aware Tacitus doesn't mention when he became governor of Syria.
@@aaronmueller5802 Is it possible for Quirinius to hold the positions of both Governor of Syria and mentor to Gaius at the same time? Consider what that entails.
Luke doesn't say Quirinus was governor, he says he was a hegemon. We know from Acts and GLuke that Luke referred to officials by their titles (see Luke 1 "Herod the King" vs Luke 3 "Herod the Tetrarch") and we also know from Josephus that the term hegemon refers to a variety of positions. Luke also doesn't say it was a census, only that it was a registry. It's possible he's talking about a registry associated with the Senate's vote to name Augustus Pater Patriae in 2 BC if we accept the modern scholarly opinion that Herod the Great died in 1 BC. Varus would have been governor of Syria. Also, Herod the Great had the power to tax his own kingdom since he was a client king and not a tetrarch like Archelaus was. We know from a letter sent to Herod by Augustus that he briefly fell out of favor and lost that power, so it makes sense that Augustus would have dispatched a special emissary to oversee taxation during that time.
One issue I can see with this video is that it’s dating Jesus’ birth around 6-4 BC. However, Jesus turns 30 in the 15th year of Tiberius, which is 29AD. There really wasn’t a co-regency between him and Augustus, and I’m not aware of any ancient historians who start Tiberius’ reign before 14 AD.
That's exactly why so many people, especially Christians, date Herod's death to early 1 BC and Jesus' birth to 2 BC. We really have no clear information on when it happened aside from the fact that it was shortly after an eclipse, with there being three around that time: in 4 BC, a particularly visible one in Judea in 1 BC, and in 1 AD (which is the traditional dating and the source for the BC/AD divide).
Will you ever do contradictions in the Old Testament? I was reading about Goliath and that there were apparently two killers of Goliath. 1 Samuel 17:49-50 says David did it, but 2 Samuel 21:19 says Elhanan did; now the KJV adds "the brother of Goliath" in 2 Samuel, but the original Hebrew did not include it. I've also heard that 1 Chronicles 20:5 deliberately added "the brother of Goliath" to solve the contradiction. How should we interpret this?
This ignores 2 major issues: First, Sabinus caused an uprising in Jerusalem when he ticked off the Jews. Quirinius was in Galitia quelling another uprising from 12bc-1bc. The success of that campaign is what got him awarded the governor's role in Syria. Had Quirinius caused an uprising in Jerusalem it is unlikely that he would then be rewarded for quelling it. Second, Quirinus wasn't in Jerusalem at the time Sabinus was in Jerusalem, he was in Galatia.
Can you give us the difference between a Procurator and a Governor. As I understand it a Procurator's powers were limited to dealing with political crimes, like applying the death penalty for them. However, a Governor seems to have had more extensive powers. You mention both titles in this really good piece, and it would be great to have clarity about what they mean.
Luke 2:2 “This registration started before Quirinius became a governing leader of Syria” If there was a census under Quirinius in AD6-7, then following the same schedule as Egypt (every 14 years), then there was one in 8-7BC as well 🤷🏼♂️ Plenty of time for the Wise Men to come, for them to go life for a while in Egypt, all before Herod cokes in 4BC.
Luke was written in Greek where there's no distinction between before and first, both are written as protos. Quirinius only ever had one census it doesn't make sense to say his first census. Luke specifically mentioned the census was of the entire Roman empire such as the one ordered in 8 BC that Herod carried out in roughly 7-6 BC. As much as I love how well put together this video is the simplest answer is usually the most reliable.
People be sleeping on Luke actually being a historian, cuz that is exactly what St. Luke is, he's a Beast, I mean come on he wrote the book of Acts, which is the history of the church Jesus Christ started, and we get to see the first church Council, we get to see how the church grows, who is in charge, that's why the church looks so diff today, like you look the same as your newborn baby pictures...
Oh Josephus made the error? You r crazy Luke is the one who made the mistake , bible is always guilty , dont forget Mike nyhahahahah 😂 God bless u brother ❤❤🙏🏻🌷✝️
Certain writers did make quilts of quoatations/references from multiple accounts for readers to sift through to assemble their own mental harmonization of the reported events, rather than simply try to provide a perfect narrative whose seemlessness might make corrections hard to make.
Isn’t Luke’s account supposed to be the word of an inherent God written under the auspice is of the Holy Spirit? If that is the case, why do we have to spend in ordinate amount of time to try to sort out what the facts are? What is the Holy Spirit confused
@@martingoayala45 Bert makes the claim (though I doubt he has thought it through enough to realize so) that when Jesus was on the cross, the sun did not go dark until AFTER the 3 hours of darkness. You read that right. Its complete nonsense, but Bert interprets Luke 23:44-46 as being specifically listed in chronological order. His claim is that Luke 23:45-46 says "and the sun was darkened, and the temple veil rent. And Jesus cried out ... and gave up the ghost." And thus the veil was torn BEFORE Jesus died, because its listed first. And that this contradicts Mark 15:37-38 which says "Jesus cried out and gave up the ghost. And the temple veil was rent."
@@martingoayala45 he also claims that Matthew 28 contradicts Luke 24, because Matthew gives a short summary of after the resurrection, consisting of roughly 67 lines of text. While Luke gives a far more detailed account including the passing of time, consisting of roughly 200 lines of text. Granted, there could still be a contradiction there, but because the disciples did not obey Jesus' first command after rising (go to Galilee) it's possible that due to the stir of Jesus' body not being found, the disciples needed to lie low for a while before they could safely leave the city. Which is not only possible, but likely imo
@@grantshearer5615 seems like Bert is relying too much on the intricacies of the wordings. However, his arguments on the speed at which someone can be mythologized is fairly solid.
All history is probablistic in nature. Do we have any sources other than Josephus and Luke that give any details that might be relevant? Because (if evaluating them strictly as historical works) there's no reason to assert that Josephus is right and Luke is wrong.
The real question is: Why would Joseph have to travel to Bethlehem? It's too disruptive to have people travel to ancestral homes instead of a where-you-live-now census.
13:06 there's a typo, 'cease' instead of 'sieze'. Also, the rebel Pharisees taught immortality of the soul? Are you sure you don't mean resurrection of the dead?
Dr. Rhoads' paper is unacceptably poor scholarship. Here are just a few of the objections to made: First, instead of quoting Josephus' passages about Judas directly, Rhoads summarizes. I think the reason he does so is clear: anyone who goes and reads the actual passages in Josephus will see that Rhoads' case is far, far worse than he lets on. The first Judas is one of the "most eloquent men among the Jews" and one of the "most celebrated interpreters of the Jewish law" whose students who were "studious of virtue frequented their lectures every day." This Judas probably lives in Jerusalem, though Josephus does not say that. The second Judas is the "son of Ezekias who had been head of the robbers." Is the son of a robber-baron in Galilee going to become one of "the most eloquent men among the Jews" giving lectures on virtue in Jerusalem? According to Josephus the second Judas possessed "an ambitious desire of the royal dignity; and he hoped to obtain that as the reward not of his virtuous skill in war, but of his extravagance in doing injuries." So Dr. Rhoads would have us believe that this is the same man, and that Josephus presented the stories out of order. Here is the reconstruction: Judas is a man born to a robber-baron in Galilee who received an "education" in his youth, (probably in Jerusalem since it was the very best education, certainly not in Galilee at least), was thirsty for power, returned to Galilee at some point to lead a band of robbers similar to the one his father led and was extravagant in doing injuries, and then returned to Jerusalem yet again to teach, where he was regarded as eminently wise and gave lectures on virtue before encouraging the eagle insurrection. This is truly an extraordinary claim. Now for the issue of Quirinius and Sabinus. Dr. Rhoads says that Quirinius was sent as a legatus juridicus. He accurately describes the position but is wrong to say that this is Quirinius' position. Josephus does not call Quirinius a legatus juridicus. He says that Quirinius was sent as a judge. People might see the word "juridicus" and say "oh that means judge" and think that Dr. Rhoads is correct. But judging is also the responsibility of the legati pro praetore. The legati juridici simply received subordinate cases (see legati juridici, www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0063:entry=legatus-cn). It seems that Dr. Rhoads is hoping that his readers will not understand the governmental systems of the time and will not check the Greek themselves. I think he is fully aware of his own dishonesty on this point. Quirnius is pretty clearly being described here as a legatus pro praetore even though it is not explicitly said. There is no one mentioned who is in charge of him, and his task is probably of too great importance for a legato juridicus. Also, while Luke does not explicitly call Quirinius a legato pro praetore, it is extremely unlikely that Luke would refer to Quirinius as governing Syria if Quirinius were just a legato juridicus. Who is his superior? Why describe the subordinate as governing the province without mentioning who is actually in charge? But even if Quirinius were a legatus juridicus, (and it is important to emphasize he almost certainly was not) this would not necessarily connect his role to that of Sabinus. Sabinus was, as Dr. Rhoads states, a procurator. He says "Similarly" which is indeed the correct word. The offices are similar. But they are not the same; legato juridicus is more specific. Thus it is not justified for Dr. Rhoads to say that Sabinus and Quirinius held the same office. That is speculation which goes against the information we have, both in Luke and in Josephus. But even if they did hold the same office, I think you would agree with me that this is not nearly enough yet to conclude that they are the same person. George Bush and Donald Trump both held the office of president. So we go on. Dr. Rhoads proposes that Sabinus was of consular rank (Quirinius was indisputably so). What is Dr. Rhoads evidence? That Sabinus defied Varus. This is a very weak argument. You do not have to be the same rank as someone to defy them. You can just be stupid or vain. And even if they were of the same rank, this hardly justifies concluding that they are the same person. Note the sleight of hand that Dr. Rhoads uses "Not only are the offices of Sabinus and Quirinius characterized as comparable," - yes comparable, but not the same - "they are described as sharing as apparently sharing the same rank, " no, not at all. Sabinus' rank is never described; that was only Rhoads' speculation. At best we can infer that he was of senatorial rank but it seems dubious to suggest he was of consular rank. Next he points out that Sabinus and Quirinius were sent to deal with the property of the Herods. But the way they deal with it is quite different. Sabinus is rushing to secure it because it is in danger. Josephus does not say that Quirinius went to secure Archelaus' property but to dispose of it. There is no indication in this passage that the property is threatened. Nonetheless, some similarity remains between the actions. So I ask you, if two historical people perform similar actions in dissimilar circumstances, in what instance does this justify conflating the circumstances and speculating that these two people are the same? Next Dr. Rhoads says "the suggestion that Josephus changed the name to Archelaus, even though his source referred to Herod, does not require mere presumption." But it does require mere presumption. To not be mere presumption, Dr. Rhoads would have to provide evidence for the truthfulness of the claim. But he does not provide evidence that the claim is true, only evidence that the claim is possible- "possibly Josephus relied on a source for his account of the census that did not refer to Archelaus by name" yes it's possible but mere presumption to speculate that this is the case. "Josephus does write King Herod where he had, in the parallel passage of the Jewish War written Archelaus." This is sleight of hand. All it shows is that Josephus might refer to Archelaus as King Herod. It is not evidence that Josephus' source in question would do so. And even if the source would do so, it is not evidence that the source did. We have absolutely no idea what name Josephus' source used and to say that it did not specify Herod Archelaus is indeed mere presumption. As for the idea that Josephus might have had a motive to change his source from Herod the Great to Herod Archelaus, sure, he may well have. People have motives to deviate from their sources all the time. It is incumbent on Dr. Rhoads to provide evidence that he actually did so. He does not, so it is still mere presumption. This is just some of the objections to be made.
Hi sir, did you read this new book " Five Views on the Exodus: Historicity, Chronology, and Theological Implications" published on April 13th of this month . And one of the author was James Hoffmeier. Any review of this book?
There is also the curious mention of Justin Martyr writing about the year 150 AD to the Emperor Antoninus Pius in his First Apology about the enrollment document itself. He is trying to show Antoninus that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the ancient Hebrew prophecies and he cites the prophecy of Micah that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem 'O you Bethlehem Ephratha..." and he tells Caesar that if he doesn't believe him that Jesus was in fact born in Bethlehem he should look in his own records at "'the taxation done in Syria under Quirinius." Whatever happened to that document we don't know; it was probably destroyed by the Roman Empire during the later persecutions but it is something to think that there still existed in the middle of second century a Roman tax document with the names of Joseph the carpenter who hailed from the city of Bethlehem and Mary his wife and their infant son Jesus written on it and that Justin Martyr probably had seen it himself 150 years later.
I'm not sure where to post this so that it would be most likely to get a response, but your most recent video should suffice. What I have to say regards a theory for the historical identification for the Exodus. For the most part, we know the Exodus needs to be dated between 1400 and 1200 BC, given the [figurative] time frames given in 1 Kings 6, Acts 13, etc., and even what secular scholarship tells us (e.g., Dr. B. Noonan's research into Egyptian loanwords in Exodus (which you cited yourself), which contains feminine -t nouns, indicating a pre-13th century date due to the near-absolute loss of that ending afterwards). Your video on the Exodus, and on Jacob & Joseph, indicate that you believe the Hyksos were the rulers that the Hebrews entered Egypt under, and it does make sense. However, after they were overthrown you indicate that's when the Egyptian slavery began. HOWEVER, Exodus 1 clearly states that the slavery did not begin until Moses' day, which would have been about four centuries or so after the entry of the Hebrews, meaning that a number of decades would have passed between the fall of the Hyksos and the beginning of the slavery. Still, this would have been enough time for "a new king, to whom Joseph meant nothing, [to come] to power in Egypt" (Exodus 1:8). This is where my theory comes into play. In the mid-14th century BC, Akhenaten ruled as Pharoah for a few years and imposed a weird henothestic or monolatrous cult around Aten upon the Egyptians. This was the first time, and practically the last time, anything nearly monotheistic occurred in ancient Egypt. Akhenaten likely had two reasons to become an Atenist: one, Amun-Ra (the patron god of Thebes, a city he had a strong connection to (e.g. his royal title, "Amenhotep, god-ruler of Thebes")), and two, the rapidly rising Hebrews. Aten was considered an aspect of Ra (Donald Redford, Akhenaten: The Heretic King, Princeton University Press, pp. 170-172), Amenhotep (Akhenaten's original name) referred to Amun, and the power of the Thebian priesthood was well-known in the New Kingdom period; the Hebrews - most definitely remaining the hardworking laborers of Goshen - would have also been worthy to gain the loyalty of through religious monism, especially due to their burgeoning strength through numbers (Exodus 1:7). Pretty much, by exalting an aspect of Amun-Ra and focusing on one god, Akhenaten made a very clever political move by appealing to two powerful sectors of Egyptian society. However, as we know, Akhenaten failed and his attempt to monotheize Egypt fell short. This brings us to the Pharaoh of Exodus 1, who I theorize was Horemheb (r. 1306 BC - 1292 BC). Horemheb, after coming to power, showed some hostility toward Akhenaten's reign, destroying his monuments, weakening the power of the Thebian priesthood, and more (Nicolas Grimal, A History of Ancient Egypt, Blackwell, pp. 243, 303). If he punished Egyptians in this manner, the penalty non-Egyptians (whose contributions to Egypt were undervalued) would have faced could have been much greater, and it was not out of character nor beyond the power of the god-king of Egypt to enslave an entire people group. This is as far as I have made it in connecting these sequence of events in Egyptian history to the record contained within Exodus. I'm hoping you will see this and give careful consideration to my argument, because I would absolutely love to hear what you have to think about it, especially as you reevaluate your own investigation on the Exodus. Thanks for whatever input you give, God bless.
I think you're being extremely charitable to the opposing position and conservative with your own but never change. Very good. I find it wholly convincing since Josephus' chronology creates too many unlikelihoods but certainly puts an end to this objection.
IP, I know I'm a little late to the game, but what would you make of moving this back a couple of more years and making this the census that is recorded in Res Gestae in 8 BCE?
Why would anyone looking at two different ancient manuscripts favour one over the other without good reason, and where one of the authors can be shown to be unreliable? 🤔
Would you say that it's possible that they are both right? Luke does say that this was the first census when quirinius was governor. This census could be the census from Res Gestae in 8 BCE
Multiple lunar eclipses could have fit the bill for what Josephus was talking about. Most historians seem to zero in on the 4 bc event, even though the 1 bc event makes more sense. If more descriptors were given than “there was a lunar eclipse” we could have a more accurate date. The 4 bc eclipse takes place during Purim. Not enough between the eclipse and Passover would have taken place for word to reach Augustus and his response to be received back if we go with the 4 bc date. There also was a special census for the year 2 bc ordered by the Senate for a new honor given to Augustus.
There was a military leader named quirinius that did a census in 8 BC and the census was done via military, so its likely Luke was attributing the census to him. Check out the book Unearthing The Bible
Great presentation but you over-looked one thing. Luke's account is automatically wrong because it's in the Bible and Jesephus is automatically right because he's not. That's how modern arm-chair history works.
Oh my God, you’re right!
@@InspiringPhilosophy 🤣🤣🤣
@@InspiringPhilosophy isn’t saying “omg” a sin
No, Josephus is automatically wrong and Luke is automatically right because Luke is always right. That is how inerrantist apologetics works.
@@WildCard-ze3tm dude you don’t have the original manuscripts of Josephus work. It still doesn’t refute my point on scribes messing with his studf
I should read that paper. You managed to get me interested in a wall of text. Hats off to you, sir.
agreed
Jesus Christ the true good sovereign king loves you
Inspiring Philosophy got me into reading books somehow
MAN you did some heavy lifting on this video. Good Work! We very much appreciate what you do on this channel and informing us with great information. God Bless!
amen my friend
may your ways reflect Jesus' desires for you
may you have love, mercy, forgiveness and patience with others, even those you may deem enemies (not that we should see people as enemies but rather lost souls in need of Jesus that we should try and help (if beneficial) and pray for)
To paraphrase Bart Ehrman: "Was Varus in Judea when Archelaeus left or did he meet him in Caesarea? It depends on which passage in Josephus you read."
Bart Ehrman? He had to recant earlier claims when he was called out for dishonesty
@J H if you actually read them yourself and not just trust what someone else tells you about them. Source verification. It's a real thing. It's actually really important, too, but people are lazy
@J H they don't conflict, they were just written by different people. Whenever multiple people witness the same event, there's always going to be minor variances within the retelling of the event. That's normal. Any good investigator will tell you that if multiple eyewitnesses report what they saw, and all of their stories mesh perfectly in every detail, then a collusion is suspected to be taking place.
Another thing to consider is that the four gospel writers are portraying Jesus in different aspects and for different audiences. For example, Matthew wrote his gospel for the Jewish audience. That's why the majority of everything Jesus did was pointed out as a fulfillment of earlier prophecies concerning their coming Messiah. Mark emphasized Jesus' servanthood. Luke emphasized His Humanity, and John, written to the church, focused on Jesus as being God, or His divinity. They all mesh to give a fuller and more well-rounded aspect to Jesus' story.
Any and all presumed contradictions throughout the Word of God will show to not be contradictions at all when studied out thoroughly. God promised that He would preserve His Word and that it would last forever. If He couldn't do that, then He's not God. All the claims of the Bible being corrupted or parts left out or added later have been circulating for many years, but they're just as false today as they ever have been.
@@PEACE2U-ALL
But we know that Matthew and Luke used Mark as their main source and copied from Mark often word for word.
Oh... I read the rest of your post... you are a fundie conspiracy theorist who rejects the consensus of the experts.😅
@@ramigilneas9274 I won't waste your time with the Matthew, Mark, and Luke thing since you already "know" all about them. If the truth ever tries to come around and throw you off, hit it with a laughing emoji and go back to sleep.
This has always been one of my biggest doubts. Thank you for addressing this.
Glad to help
Ancient history can be confusing because they didn't use exact dates. It's not like today when we can say, "On April 17, 1978, ____ happened." (No idea if anything significant happened on that date, just an example). The dating systems back then were much more messy for many reasons. So when people recorded events, it could have been all over the place as to when it happened. This could make it look like one event happened multiple times, or multiple events with very specific similarities happened. It doesn't matter when it happened, just that it happened. (by the way, Acts 5 also reports Judas' uprising "in the days of the census".). The only reason to discredit Luke's two accounts is because of a bias against the Bible.
Reasons why ancient dating was messy:
1.) They didn't have as refined calendars. Noted that they did have calendar cycles, but it operated much differently. For one, it changed from region to region. Some areas (like the middle-east) used lunar-based year cycles (calendars), while others used solar/star-based year cycles like we do today. Because of this, how many days where in a year wasn't universally agreed on (because they would base it generally, not exactly). For example, I believe the Babylonians used 360 days/year instead of 365.25 (thus why a circle has up 360 degrees). Shaving 5.25 days off every year could change an event from 300 years ago to 304 years ago.
2) Every culture had a different time when their year-cycle began. So new-years day in Israel could have been day 280 of the year on a Roman calendar. So if an event happened one year in Israel, it could have been considered a different year in Rome (even though it was the same day).
3.) Different cultures had different standards on when a day began. So in Israel, the new day begins at sundown, while we begin a new day at midnight (some ancient cultures may have started the new day at sunrise). This may seem like a mild factor, but if something happened at night, does it get dated the day before, or the day after it happened? Two different cultures could call it a different day, and if they also disagree with the different year, then that's worse.
4.) Years were primarily counted based on the years of a king. "In the seventh year of Harod, ..." for example. This could multiply reasons why it gets messy. A.) If a king rose to power mid-year, is it considered his first year, or is the next year considered his first year? B.) Do you start saying "2nd year" at the anniversary of the king's inauguration, or at the beginning of the new year? C.) Add the problems of 1, 2, and 3, and you've got the first year of a king in his region overlapping with the third year of the same king in the eyes of another culture.
5.) Building off of 4, multiple different king's rule different regions at the same time. So region A says, "1st year of our king!", and region B says, "5th year of our king!" But if region C identifies a specific event of region A's king (in the first year) as the third year, and region D identifies the same event in region B's king, but on the 4th year, then did the event happen the first year of King A, 3rd year of King A, 4th year of King B, or 5th year of King B? Now, in the 6th year of King B, a new king arose in region C. If A1=B5 and B6=C1, then A2=C1. Or do these cultural identifiers make it so A3=B4, and B7=C1? (in which case A6=C1).
All of this combined could make it so over the course of documenting many kings and generations, an even could move many years in time-frame. All of the sources were originally true from their own cultural understanding of time, but the math may not add up.
Rick Waits pitched a 2-hit shutout for Cleveland over Texas on April 17, 1978.
@@5BBassist4Christ
thanks for saying it before I did!😅
between lunar calendars, solar calendars, 13 months or 12 months or 10 months in a year and the added dumpster fire that was records keeping 2k years ago, I'm honestly shocked anyone got within 10 years of an accurate time frame for what to them was some random Jewish carpenter's kid in a massive international empire, especially when you consider that just a couple of hundred years ago, an accurate birth date and year for a random European kid was pretty sketchy.
@@azurephoenix9546 Calculating between different calendars is so tricky. I had to give up calculating the Daniel Prophecy regarding the death of the Messiah. Yes, I've heard others say the calculated fulfillment is Jesus' Triumphal entry in 30 A.D., others say the same event but in 33 A.D.. After calculating the death of Jesus (likely in 33 A.D.), I was curious to calculate it myself. I had to give up, because calculating 400+ year prophecy from either the Persian or the Jewish Calendar, converting the start date to the end date in the Julian Calendar just got too confusing. It was to the point where the number of days in leap-year between the Jewish calendar and modern calendar got too confusing, because the earth actually goes around the sun once every 365.26 days, not .25.
@@5BBassist4Christ Actually, Daniel 9 deals in sevens of years - the difference in various years is highly inconsequential, especially if one takes into account that lunar years were supplemented by leap months - hence the difference can at worst be a month - but Daniel 9 doesn't deal in months but only seven-year-periods and, at one point, half of such a period.
The idea that one has to transform one sort of year into another sort of year is already wrongheaded and the basis for much manipulation.
I'm partial to this explanation from the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible. Here's a portion of it for any interested:
"The role of Quirinius is perhaps the most difficult detail to interpret in Luke's narrative (Lk 2:2). It is well established that he initiated a taxation census soon after he was appointed the provincial legate of Syria in A.D. 6. Yet evidence is lacking that he held this position more than once or that he ever conducted more than one census. How, then, can Luke associate Quirinius with a census that occurred many years earlier, when Jesus was born? The most helpful clue might be found in Luke's own words. The Greek expression that he uses in Lk 2:2 for the governing role of Quirinius is the exact description he uses for Pontius Pilate's governing role in Lk 3:1. Since Pilate 'governed' as a regional procurator and was not the legate of an entire Roman province (like Syria), it leaves open the possibility that Luke is referring to an administrative role assumed by Quirinius that had nothing to do with his later position as an imperial legate. This possibility is strengthened by the Church Father Justin Martyr, who states that Quirinius was a 'procurator' in Judea (not Syria) at the time of Jesus' birth! It likewise enables us to make greater sense of the testimony of another early Christian writer, Tertullian, who says that Saturninus (not Quirinius) was the official legate of Syria at the time of the Nativity. It may be that Quirinius was an administrator of a Judean census (i.e., the 3 B.C. oath-registration) several years before conducting another census for taxation in A.D. 6."
The ICSB, after having addressed both the death of Herod (which it places in "early spring of 1 B.C., soon after a lunar eclipse in January of that year") and Caesar's decree (which it argues was actually an empire-wide public oath-swearing registration where all swore allegiance to Caesar Augustus as "Father" of the Empire, which Caesar Augustus's own writings date to around 2 B.C.), places the date of Jesus's birth to between 3 and 2 B.C.
"Although there are gaps in this reconstruction, and much remains uncertain, the cumulative force of the evidence is significant. Herod's death, Caesar's decree, and the governing position of Quirinius are all historical factors that, when reconsidered, yield a more coherent portrait of the events surrounding the Nativity. This would mean that Jesus was born between 3 and 2 B.C., the enrollment of Joseph and Mary was a registration of their loyalty to the Roman Caesar, and the documentation of this oath was organized and implemented in Judea by Quirinius several years before he was made the official governor of Syria. This reconstruction not only eases the chronological tensions in Lk 2:1-2, it helps to confirm Luke's reliability as a historian as well as the early Church's reliability as a channel of historical traditions."
"Leave Judea, go to Antioch, then go to Caesarea to meet Archelaus, tell Sabinus to not seize Herod's estate, then return to Antioch, but then probably go to Judea with more than one legion to quell rebellions, then leave Judea before Sabinus arrived from Caesarea to seize Herod's estate, go to the pub, have a nice cold pint, and wait for this all to blow over!"
Perfection
Hey @InspiringPhilosophy thanks for the video and the recommendation for Rhoads' paper!
@@InspiringPhilosophy are u ever going to respond to Digital gnostics they made two videos about you.
Sounds like the harmonization of the resurrections stories.
@@chronographer not really, lol. There are harmonizations by numerous scholars that are logical and straightforward. Besides that, most of the details in the accounts aren't actually contradictory if you read carefully - what one says does not preclude the other's being true (if one says there were three women at the tomb, those were just the women chosen for the author's account, but there was likely at least 5 women altogether). Besides, this is precisely what makes them more historically reliable as sources. Were they colluding to falsify an event we'd expect the stories to be exactly the same, point for point, same order of people and same order of events, etc.
Luke never made the kind of blunders Josephus made, making Luke way more reliable.
The guys did not have Wikipedia back then to check data!
@@PjotrII yeb Luke gets way too many things right without Google and Wikipedia.
@@johnnybrave7443 I think we need to take into account that they had a harder time getting all details right, no matter if it was Luke or Josephus. Luke also claims to have gathered the info to get the data as right as possible... so there is a chance Luke got it right... the content of this video is really interesting.
@@PjotrII so true
@@johnnybrave7443 like what?
Thank goodness you made a video on this. I hate it when skeptics say this error hopelessly erroneous.
Jesus the good sovereign lord loves you
may youre ways be of Jesus the good loving lord, may you have forgiveness, care, mercy, patience, and God's hope with you always :" )
our God is good and true
It's also worth pointing out that Josephus's focus was on compiling a general history of the region whereas Luke was interviewing eyewitnesses, likely including Mary herself, and record keepers to get a precise timeline of the life of the Son of God.
@@tomasrocha6139Luke said his sources were eye witnesses at the start of his gospel
@@tomasrocha6139 probably because it was to a gentile audience who would really care for such detail, and using logic it’s obvious Mary was interviewed by Luke 😭
@@tomasrocha6139 the creator of this video has already debunked what I just said but to be precise 1.) the statement “Augustus ceaser wanted to tax the world” doesn’t necessarily mean he taxed it all at once and 2.) there’s no proof that a.)they didn’t go back to their home towns (arguement from silence) and b.)there’s proof Egypt carried out a similar task 140 years later so why counting Herod do the same?
@@tomasrocha6139 there’s proof Roman census did cover client kingdoms
@@tomasrocha6139 watch inspiring philosophy’s and testify studies about the census they’ll answer ur questions and are far more educated about it than me
I have researched this as well a few months ago and came to the same conclusion. Great work!
can u pls explain me what this is all about??? what are u trying to do ?
Mind giving a short synopsis? This video had me confused
Jesus the good sovereign king loves you all, may you base your ideals on His ways :" )
@@andys3035 in otherwords, Josephus' timing and wording shows that he misinterpreted quirinius' timing
leading to Luke being more likely to be accurate (as shown through his impeccable accuracy in the bible and the sheer amount of inaccuracy in josephus' account)
simply showing that the bible is accurate always, even in the smallest details
@@privatprivat7279 (i wrote this rn to another person but i can paste it to you since you sound like you are curious aswell 😊)
in otherwords, Josephus' timing and wording shows that he misinterpreted quirinius' timing
leading to Luke being more likely to be accurate (as shown through his impeccable accuracy in the bible and the sheer amount of inaccuracy in josephus' account)
simply showing that the bible is accurate always, even in the smallest details
Your ministry is such a blessing. God bless you & yours Mike Jones! Thank you!
Just found out about IP, I’ve watched so many of these, they’re great. I’m an Orthodox Christian and these videos have made me really appreciate Christianity more
"Quinctilius Varus, give me back my -Legions- chronology!"
freiheit oder tod!!!
@@danglingondivineladders3994 D:
@@bola5061 :D
@@bola5061 FREIHEIT ODER TOD!!!!!
As always, this is a great demonstration of the effort and seriousness in which you conduct this channel. Great video, it is sometimes hard to follow, yet it is really interesting.
33:54 The one time the Bible is quoted as "external" evidence...daaaaang....
Why do modern people assume that people in the past are stupid or less skeptical? People living closer to the events would have pointed out Luke's error if it was so obvious?
Obviously… I really don’t get it. If my brother wrote about what president/ event happened at my birth, and it contradicts what my mother and everyone else said what happened, or if my sister told him that stuff didn’t happen at my birth, and it was some big goofy mess up, people would know….
And again it’s a pretty big blatant claim, and people then who would have been ALIVE accepted it, and since Luke interviewed people, some would surely talk about the census
Because a lot of modern people were indoctrinated into the stupid Victorian notion that intelligence was invented at around the same time things like scientific racism "saved us" from Christianity. Anything prior to degenerates like Voltaire is stupid according to arm chair historians and disingenous 'scholars'.
@@tomasrocha6139 Lets start with the first eyewitnesses are Zechariah and Mary. Luke says he has eyewitnesses and then tells you events pertaining to people. What more do you need? Stop inventing hurdles and seek Jesus as I did when i could run away no further.
@@tomasrocha6139 Luke 1
King James Version
1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
Try reading for yourself instead of being lead by the other armchair experts...This is the very first 2 verses. My guess is that you will edit your post.
This is some very important work you are doing IP and God bless you for doing so in such a rational and reasonable way
"The more I have studied the narrative of the Acts, and the more I have learned year after year about Graeco-Roman society and thoughts and fashions, and organization in those provinces, the more I admire and the better I understand. I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it here. You may press the words of Luke in a degree far beyond any other historian’s, and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment, provided always that the critic knows the subject and does not go beyond the limits of science and of justice. Too often, when one reads some foolish criticism, the words of Shakespeare rise in one’s memory, that here is 'folly doctor-like controlling skill' ",
Sir William Ramsey, "The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament", p89.
"Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense; he fixes his mind on the idea and plan that rules in the evolution of history; and proportions the scale of his treatment to the importance of each incident. He seizes the important and critical events and shows their true nature at greater length, while he touches lightly or omits entirely much that was valueless for his purpose. In short, this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians",
Sir William Ramsey, "The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament", p222.
How is it that Josephus has not gotten the nickname Patchy? Seriously, that one's a freebie.
Josepatch
Great work IP! God bless you and your house!!!!
I'm curious as to why did one of a kind census take place? Making everyone moved back to their ancestral homes for the census served no purposes other than fulfilling a prophecy.
It never hapoened as a census took place where you lived now. The Romans were practical people. The greek namekess texts which later modified and we refer to as Luke is a liiterary construct in which we find unmarked text elements from Marc and Matthew. In all context is that theft and fraud to take the work if others and claim them to be yours.
They were required to return to their homes. Not their ancestral homes. This was for tax purposes. Going back to the ancestral home has no historical plausibility.
Archaeologists have a Roman document from about 104 AD telling people to got to their homes for a census. I will quote it. You can also google it. It came from the Egyptian area.
"Gaius Vibius Maximus, prefect of Egypt, says: With the house to house registration having begun, it is necessary that all who, for whatever reason, are living away from home (apodēmousin) from their administrative districts (nomōn) are summoned to return to their own hearths (ephestia) "
This is only a part of a translation.
@@dulls8475 their homes. Not their ancestral homes from 1000 years ago.
@@samkadi5443 Where did I say ancestral homes?
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.
Here's another take on the census dates for you-
Regarding the census cited in Acts 5:37, there is strong evidence of a census being conducted in Judea in 6CE, 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 1BCE to 4CE (Schürer, pp 354-357). In 4-5CE, though, Volusius Saturninus was governor of Syria. Josephus tells us that Quirinius assumed the governorship of Syria in 6CE 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 3BCE until at least 2BCE (and possibly as late as 4CE) 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 2BCE. 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.
This is becoming my therapy session.
I use these videos as white noise while focusing on other things.
I really like your videos, and I think you are making a great argument here, but Quirinius is a well-documented person, that was held in high esteem and we know plenty of details about his career. His full name was Publius Sulpicius Quirinius and he was from Lanuvium. I can't find any Sabine connection or a Sabinus agnomen/cognomen for him attested somewhere. He was leading campaigns in central Asian Minor from 12 BC to 1BC against a local tribe (Homonadensians). By then he was already of proconsular rank and of very high status.
We can make an assumption, I guess, that parallel to his other duties, he was entrusted with organizing the census in the lands of Herod.
We can even take it further and make the assumption that this was the reason that Augustus trusted him and honored him in 1AD with the tutelage of his heir (his young nephew, Gaius Caesar).
But I think he was a distinct person from Sabinus.
I like the argument you made about having to be of consular rank for him to ignore Varus, so my guess would be Gaius Calvisius Sabinus, consul 4 BC.
Great video. great in depth research as usual. Your channel is one of the only one I have found that mainly agrees with my own biblical research.
Man, I'm only half way and I'm so lost with all the different events. XD
I recommend watching more than once
@@InspiringPhilosophy are you ever going to respond to digital gnostics they have 2 videos about u
@@InspiringPhilosophy I'll have to. Lol
@@webslinger527 digital gnostics are so absurd they may as well call themselves digital rejects.
@@mom4998 you watch the video if so would you mind telling me what you found wrong with it.
This shows just how biased biblical skeptics are nowadays, these people will trust anything BUT the gospels, it doesn't matter if they were written at a later date or if they're full of chronological errors, they still somehow put them above the gospels.
That is an incredibly factual statement.
The writers of the Bible are not wrong that (ancient Israelites) participated in Baal worship. Some sects of Judaism still participate in Baal worship, even today.
The death of ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ was the ultimate blood sacrifice to end (sacramental religious barbaric customs). Sadly, certain Jews still wanted to go back to their old ways of worship.
Most people do not realize that the census of 6 AD was the first census that could have affected Joseph because it was the first registration of all taxpayers in the province (and Luke writes that it was the first registration for a reason). All the censuses that had been taken before (including the three mentioned in Augustus' Res Gestae) were censuses that registered only Roman citizens, that is, inhabitants of the empire who possessed the Civitas Romana. Joseph was certainly not a Roman citizen. For Roman citizenship was granted only in exceptional cases.
The governor of Syria was not responsible for Judea until 6 AD, after Judea had been incorporated into the Roman protectorate of Syria, which demonstrably did not take place until 6 AD after Archelaus had been deposed. This is the only reason why Luke's mention of Quirinius makes any sense at all.
This explanation seems pretty weak to me, for many reasons. For one, the idea (at 34:15) that Luke was using 'hegemon' to denote some lower rank (i.e., NOT legatus agusti) has been used before to try to resolve this contradiction, and it brings in a host of problems (for example, Luke also uses 'hegemon' to describe Pontius Pilate, but it seems highly unlikely that Luke was not calling Pilate the governor). The association with Syria is also important: the verse doesn't just say Quirinius was a 'hegemon' but specifically 'of Syria'. If Luke did not mean for this to imply a governorship, it seems a strain to imagine what he was trying to communicate: that Quirinius held an office specific to Syria... but *not* procurator? It's also worth pointing out that this same language is used by Justin Martyr who describes Quirinius' census as happening while Quirinius was the first procurator of Syria (the theory proposed by this video would have us rewrite this description as well).
To top off the strength of this interpretation, Luke's mentioning of Quirinius' governorship of Syria makes complete sense in context: it was only after Judea became part of the province of Syria (AD 6) that it would be natural to date events happening in Judea by the name of the governor of Syria. Why would Luke date an event by (a) an office in Syria (where it did not take place) and (b) a lower office (not procurator)? It's like dating an event in San Francisco by saying "This happened while John Smith was (a) Secretary of the State of Nevada", rather than "This happened while John Smith was governor of California".
//This explanation seems pretty weak to me, for many reasons. For one, the idea (at 34:15) that Luke was using 'hegemon' to denote some lower rank (i.e., NOT legatus agusti) has been used before to try to resolve this contradiction, and it brings in a host of problems (for example, Luke also uses 'hegemon' to describe Pontius Pilate, but it seems highly unlikely that Luke was not calling Pilate the governor). The association with Syria is also important: the verse doesn't just say Quirinius was a 'hegemon' but specifically 'of Syria'. If Luke did not mean for this to imply a governorship, it seems a strain to imagine what he was trying to communicate: that Quirinius held an office specific to Syria... but not procurator? It's also worth pointing out that this same language is used by Justin Martyr who describes Quirinius' census as happening while Quirinius was the first procurator of Syria (the theory proposed by this video would have us rewrite this description as well).//
It's not necessarily a lower rank. In Josephus' narration, Sabinus is clearly of an equal rank as Varus since he ignores his orders. Procurator was a rank of which there were multiple offices including Governor and Censor. Josephus also uses the word "hegemon" to describe a multitude of positions, not just the regional governor. Luke would refer to Quirinius as a hegemon because that was his rank and his position at the time was head of the registry taking place in Judea. So Quirinius was a procurator, though not governor specifically, and he was assigned specifically to the region of Syria.
//To top off the strength of this interpretation, Luke's mentioning of Quirinius' governorship of Syria makes complete sense in context: it was only after Judea became part of the province of Syria (AD 6) that it would be natural to date events happening in Judea by the name of the governor of Syria. Why would Luke date an event by (a) an office in Syria (where it did not take place) and (b) a lower office (not procurator)? It's like dating an event in San Francisco by saying "This happened while John Smith was (a) Secretary of the State of Nevada", rather than "This happened while John Smith was governor of California".//
This ignores Luke 1, where he clearly states that Mary and Elizabeth conceived during the reign of Herod the Great, and Luke 3 where he associates Jesus and John the Baptist's ministries with Archelaus and Philip being in charge. We also know from Acts 5 that Luke was aware of the controversy surrounding Judas the Galilean, who Josephus associates with the 6 AD census. Clearly Luke associates Jesus' birth with Herod the Great and isn't confusing him with Archelaus and he also likely knows about the 6 AD census. He'd have to be a complete idiot to be talking about the 6 AD census with respect to Quirinius, which would be an uncharacteristic mistake for Luke to make.
Judea is in the Roman province of Syria. Also, Herod the Great lost the power to tax his kingdom directly for a short time near the end of his life though he eventually returned to good standing.
Luke doesn't refer to Quirinius by a lower rank. He also doesn't say the registry is a tax. It could easily be a registry associated with the senate's vote to name Augustus _Pater Patriae_ in 2 BC. Recent Scholarship has also challenged dating Herod's death to 4 BC, noting he could also have died in 1 BC.
The problem I have heard from various people is:
"Why did Mary and Joseph have to go to Bethlehem to be counted? This makes no sense as it would have been easier to count them if they stayed at home. The reason given in Luke would surely have involved a simultaneous upheaval for a significant proportion of the Jewish people. Chaos would be the likely end result. It is just a device to make sure Jesus fulfils a prophecy in the Old Testament."
I never know what to say to this. Any ideas?
Romans needed to conduct the census because they taxed people based on their capital- their private property. The Jews, who had a compound religious text and Constitution, the Torah, did not believe in private property, and taxed based on income. In order to tax the Jew(daean)s, who had just become part of Rome based on Herod the Great's will (Herod wanted his sister and three of his sons to rule the tetrarchy- Archelaus: Judaea, Salome: Jamnia, Antipas: Galilee/Perea, Philip: Batanea. When they died, their realm was ceded to Rome), the Jews were commanded to join their families in their ancestral homeland to tax them.
Excellent and compelling video! Also so exciting to see Varus pop up after watching Barbarians on Netflix
This is amazing thanks IP!
May the faaart be with you, master Kenobi.
Oh, hello there.
You hadn't told us you'd created a new video. Not a bad job and certainly more detailed than your previous endeavor. I imagine we'll have some questions/answers in the coming weeks. As always, thanks for the cordiality.
Oh and we should note: we don't automatically assume Luke is wrong about everything simply because its in the Bible. Hell, we don't assume it at all.
I wanna meet luke, he seems to be a cool dude.
Hey IP love your work! Here’s something that I struggled with but solved on my own. Mathew 27 in reference to Zachariah/Jeremiah in regards to “the potter”. This is something I’ve seen many believers struggle with and I would love to see your perspective and research on this topic.
Thanks
God Bless
Hhhmmm not heard this theory before. Not entirely convinced, but at least makes me want to explore this avenue now! Thanks!
32:30 Also, didn't Herod the Great have a habit of killing the high priests towards the end of his reign on a regular basis (as happened to Zechariah according to the Protoevangelium of James)?
Fits with the narrative perfectly.
@@DavidBlagic156945 Yeah. It seems strange that a high priest who was alive during a time where priests were systematically killed would all of a sudden repeat the same events 10 years later.
@Computing The Soul “ Also, didn't Herod the Great have a habit of killing the high priests towards the end of his reign on a regular basis”
Good Lord, was Herod absolutely insane or something?
@@marcfofi688 He killed a bunch of his family members as well.
@Computing The Soul He sounds like an ancient Jewish Stalin.
Hey IP are there any other primary sources for the census of Quirinius other than Josephus ?
No
@@InspiringPhilosophy Oh.. I saw a comment from an atheist who claims that the 6 AD dating for the census of quirinius was based not only on josephus but also on other historic sources.
I hope IP does another “Jesus vs.” video. I know they’re probably repetitive at this point, but I learn so much from them. I would love to see Jesus win against Prometheus and Esus.
Jesus the good sovereign lord above adores you :" )
may your ways be of Jesus' ideals for you
When King Herod died, Emperor Augustus and Queen Livia presented Herod's lastwill, and according to which Herod had bequeathed to them ten thousand pieces of silver sestertii, which was about half the all wealth of Judea. Under the control of Gaius Caesar and his tutor Publius Quirinius, Procurator Sabinus, Augustus' treasurer in Syria, was sent to gather these ten thousand pieces of silver sestertii from Judea to the emperor. And this occurred about 8-10 years before the famous census of Quirinius in 6 CE.
The KJV says the census happened during Herod, but the tax didn’t go into effect until Quirinius. Thoughts? If we just use the KJV, then Luke and Josephus are both right.
Michael, just a random question: could it be possible that there were two censuses instead of only one? I mean, given that Luke speaks for the census around the time of Christ's birth as the "first" and later, Luke himself, in Acts 5:36-37, mentioned two rebels (Theudas and Judas the Galilean) in two different rebellions, during "the days of the census"?
Good catch. The Greek text of Luke 2:2 has _"apographe protos"_ which means "first census." Acts 5v37 could be referring to the same census or to a second census in 6 AD.
For this reason, I’ve always thought he was describing a less important census than the one in AD 6. The “first” census. And of course, Quirinius was in Syria and was basically governing it around 4BC. So, a straightforward reading could be correct.
But IP makes a good case that this was a possibility too
It would have saved me 30 minutes of day dreaming. Strange he did not discuss that, or did I miss it?
That's very much possible.
Also, I wish everyone would dispense with the word "census" in this context as it quite clearly was not a census (a registration of Roman citizens). Luke also uses neither the word "census" nor does he say anything about taxes or other financial purposes (as opposed to Josephus).
@@claymcdermott718 A 4 BC registration however does not solve matters at all as Herod died early in 4 BC and the Holy Family fled to Egypt while Herod was still alive, some while after the registration.
Just popped over from a video by cosmic skeptic on this issue. Love it.
Has Inspiring Philosophy ever said the Gospels got anything wrong?
People have tried but archeologists have found evidence that backs them.
John Rhoads was WILD with that conclusion! XD LOL
why did someone dislike it already it hasn't even started
Atheist
@@seal9390 Closed-minded-ist
It was probably J Michael
Nope not an atheist. Firm Believer. They put because i don't find Fake Falk's humor funny. Then they call you a troll when you call them out and roll their eyes... Haha yeah. They're such 'good' people. They can't legit take on Patterns of Evidence Exodus so they mock it. It's rather pathetic. But i think it's necessary to point that out for a more critically thinking audience lest they be deluded. 'You're no fun' is their response. Frankly, Scarlett, i don't give a beaver's tail nor its dam... Haha
@@HerveyShmervy how did you guess, Loser? Lol
This was wonderful, thank you.
Thank you
33:38 good point about Herod’s will giving intricate knowledge of his kingdom
Even if the census did take place during Herod the great, the question still remains, when was Quirinius appointed as Legate (governor) of Syria? Putting aside what Josephus said, we also know that prior to his appointment, Quirinius also served as Rector (mentor/guide) to the grandson of Augustus Caesar, Gaius Caesar. Gaius Caesar was wounded around the end of 3AD and died around the beginning of 4AD. Quirinius was only appointed as Legate after Gaius' death. So that would still be around 4 - 6 AD.
And Luke mentions clearly that the census took place "when Quirinius was governor of Syria". Quirinius only became governor of Syria after Gaius' death. So Luke had to have been referring to the period of 4 - 6 AD.
34:18 Would Quirinius have had the authority to conduct a census while not being governor? If he wasn't the governor when the census was conducted, who was? And why would that person have stepped aside and not taken on the duty of conducting the census, instead leaving it to Quirinius?
Isn't the fact that Quirinius became governor after Gaius' death only recorded by Josephus. As far as I'm aware Tacitus doesn't mention when he became governor of Syria.
@@aaronmueller5802 Is it possible for Quirinius to hold the positions of both Governor of Syria and mentor to Gaius at the same time? Consider what that entails.
Luke doesn't say Quirinus was governor, he says he was a hegemon. We know from Acts and GLuke that Luke referred to officials by their titles (see Luke 1 "Herod the King" vs Luke 3 "Herod the Tetrarch") and we also know from Josephus that the term hegemon refers to a variety of positions.
Luke also doesn't say it was a census, only that it was a registry. It's possible he's talking about a registry associated with the Senate's vote to name Augustus Pater Patriae in 2 BC if we accept the modern scholarly opinion that Herod the Great died in 1 BC.
Varus would have been governor of Syria. Also, Herod the Great had the power to tax his own kingdom since he was a client king and not a tetrarch like Archelaus was. We know from a letter sent to Herod by Augustus that he briefly fell out of favor and lost that power, so it makes sense that Augustus would have dispatched a special emissary to oversee taxation during that time.
Very helpful. Thanks for the hard work to make the paper a little more understandable. (Key word: "little") As also for the link to the paper itself.
One issue I can see with this video is that it’s dating Jesus’ birth around 6-4 BC. However, Jesus turns 30 in the 15th year of Tiberius, which is 29AD. There really wasn’t a co-regency between him and Augustus, and I’m not aware of any ancient historians who start Tiberius’ reign before 14 AD.
That's exactly why so many people, especially Christians, date Herod's death to early 1 BC and Jesus' birth to 2 BC. We really have no clear information on when it happened aside from the fact that it was shortly after an eclipse, with there being three around that time: in 4 BC, a particularly visible one in Judea in 1 BC, and in 1 AD (which is the traditional dating and the source for the BC/AD divide).
What are your thoughts and opinions on The God Culture's videos about Ophir being the Philippines and the true name of God being Yahuah?
It is silly to even suggest.
I'm a little surprised Inspiring Philosophy did not point out the armory and the temple are one complex on the Temple Mount.
Will you ever do contradictions in the Old Testament? I was reading about Goliath and that there were apparently two killers of Goliath. 1 Samuel 17:49-50 says David did it, but 2 Samuel 21:19 says Elhanan did; now the KJV adds "the brother of Goliath" in 2 Samuel, but the original Hebrew did not include it. I've also heard that 1 Chronicles 20:5 deliberately added "the brother of Goliath" to solve the contradiction.
How should we interpret this?
That's because you're reading the KJV
Good job👊🏼 also your editing is terrific 🔥 Appreciate the effort you put in!
God bless brother 💗💗💗💗💗
1:51
2:27, 3:06 - Mistakes by Josephus
4:23 , 6:08 - Duplication
Great video as always IP.
Very informative, really miss your stuff on QM as that's what most are clueless about or have minimal understanding of.
Qm?
@@webslinger527 Quantum Mechanics
Very interesting…. Something to definitely consider. Thanks IP
This ignores 2 major issues: First, Sabinus caused an uprising in Jerusalem when he ticked off the Jews. Quirinius was in Galitia quelling another uprising from 12bc-1bc. The success of that campaign is what got him awarded the governor's role in Syria. Had Quirinius caused an uprising in Jerusalem it is unlikely that he would then be rewarded for quelling it. Second, Quirinus wasn't in Jerusalem at the time Sabinus was in Jerusalem, he was in Galatia.
Source?
The NT Review Podcast has a good vid on this also
I think u should make a video on paulgia u haven't made a video in 4 weeks
what's their opinion on it?
@@epicchrist2941 that’s why I’m saying to make a video about it or critique it
What's the video on this?
@@Iffmeister Forgot the title
No one:
Me: laughing every time IP says Sabin (Sabean 🤭)
What program are you using for the interactive map IP?
Adobe after effects
God bless you brother. God richly bless you.
Can you give us the difference between a Procurator and a Governor. As I understand it a Procurator's powers were limited to dealing with political crimes, like applying the death penalty for them. However, a Governor seems to have had more extensive powers. You mention both titles in this really good piece, and it would be great to have clarity about what they mean.
Seems Quirinius was likely a Procurator before being promoted to a Governor.
Luke 2:2 “This registration started before Quirinius became a governing leader of Syria”
If there was a census under Quirinius in AD6-7, then following the same schedule as Egypt (every 14 years), then there was one in 8-7BC as well 🤷🏼♂️
Plenty of time for the Wise Men to come, for them to go life for a while in Egypt, all before Herod cokes in 4BC.
Luke was written in Greek where there's no distinction between before and first, both are written as protos. Quirinius only ever had one census it doesn't make sense to say his first census.
Luke specifically mentioned the census was of the entire Roman empire such as the one ordered in 8 BC that Herod carried out in roughly 7-6 BC.
As much as I love how well put together this video is the simplest answer is usually the most reliable.
brilliant presentation, What software do you use to produce your videos
People be sleeping on Luke actually being a historian, cuz that is exactly what St. Luke is, he's a Beast, I mean come on he wrote the book of Acts, which is the history of the church Jesus Christ started, and we get to see the first church Council, we get to see how the church grows, who is in charge, that's why the church looks so diff today, like you look the same as your newborn baby pictures...
Oh Josephus made the error? You r crazy Luke is the one who made the mistake , bible is always guilty , dont forget Mike nyhahahahah 😂 God bless u brother ❤❤🙏🏻🌷✝️
Sarcastic, right? 😆
@@vivliforia2262 yes sure😂
Certain writers did make quilts of quoatations/references from multiple accounts for readers to sift through to assemble their own mental harmonization of the reported events, rather than simply try to provide a perfect narrative whose seemlessness might make corrections hard to make.
Isn’t Luke’s account supposed to be the word of an inherent God written under the auspice is of the Holy Spirit?
If that is the case, why do we have to spend in ordinate amount of time to try to sort out what the facts are?
What is the Holy Spirit confused
I would love to see you debate Bert Erham
Bert Erham😈
@@martingoayala45 Bert makes the claim (though I doubt he has thought it through enough to realize so) that when Jesus was on the cross, the sun did not go dark until AFTER the 3 hours of darkness.
You read that right. Its complete nonsense, but Bert interprets Luke 23:44-46 as being specifically listed in chronological order.
His claim is that Luke 23:45-46 says "and the sun was darkened, and the temple veil rent. And Jesus cried out ... and gave up the ghost." And thus the veil was torn BEFORE Jesus died, because its listed first. And that this contradicts Mark 15:37-38 which says "Jesus cried out and gave up the ghost. And the temple veil was rent."
@@grantshearer5615 Watafac, Mark's gospel lacks 'then'.
Can't see how this is an issue
@@martingoayala45 he also claims that Matthew 28 contradicts Luke 24, because Matthew gives a short summary of after the resurrection, consisting of roughly 67 lines of text. While Luke gives a far more detailed account including the passing of time, consisting of roughly 200 lines of text.
Granted, there could still be a contradiction there, but because the disciples did not obey Jesus' first command after rising (go to Galilee) it's possible that due to the stir of Jesus' body not being found, the disciples needed to lie low for a while before they could safely leave the city. Which is not only possible, but likely imo
@@grantshearer5615 seems like Bert is relying too much on the intricacies of the wordings.
However, his arguments on the speed at which someone can be mythologized is fairly solid.
Nice video, very thorough!
All history is probablistic in nature. Do we have any sources other than Josephus and Luke that give any details that might be relevant? Because (if evaluating them strictly as historical works) there's no reason to assert that Josephus is right and Luke is wrong.
The real question is: Why would Joseph have to travel to Bethlehem? It's too disruptive to have people travel to ancestral homes instead of a where-you-live-now census.
13:06 there's a typo, 'cease' instead of 'sieze'.
Also, the rebel Pharisees taught immortality of the soul? Are you sure you don't mean resurrection of the dead?
Pls "IP" where do u read these articles concerning the historicity of the gospel from?...am very interested in reading them.
Dr. Rhoads' paper is unacceptably poor scholarship. Here are just a few of the objections to made:
First, instead of quoting Josephus' passages about Judas directly, Rhoads summarizes. I think the reason he does so is clear: anyone who goes and reads the actual passages in Josephus will see that Rhoads' case is far, far worse than he lets on. The first Judas is one of the "most eloquent men among the Jews" and one of the "most celebrated interpreters of the Jewish law" whose students who were "studious of virtue frequented their lectures every day." This Judas probably lives in Jerusalem, though Josephus does not say that. The second Judas is the "son of Ezekias who had been head of the robbers." Is the son of a robber-baron in Galilee going to become one of "the most eloquent men among the Jews" giving lectures on virtue in Jerusalem? According to Josephus the second Judas possessed "an ambitious desire of the royal dignity; and he hoped to obtain that as the reward not of his virtuous skill in war, but of his extravagance in doing injuries." So Dr. Rhoads would have us believe that this is the same man, and that Josephus presented the stories out of order. Here is the reconstruction: Judas is a man born to a robber-baron in Galilee who received an "education" in his youth, (probably in Jerusalem since it was the very best education, certainly not in Galilee at least), was thirsty for power, returned to Galilee at some point to lead a band of robbers similar to the one his father led and was extravagant in doing injuries, and then returned to Jerusalem yet again to teach, where he was regarded as eminently wise and gave lectures on virtue before encouraging the eagle insurrection. This is truly an extraordinary claim.
Now for the issue of Quirinius and Sabinus. Dr. Rhoads says that Quirinius was sent as a legatus juridicus. He accurately describes the position but is wrong to say that this is Quirinius' position. Josephus does not call Quirinius a legatus juridicus. He says that Quirinius was sent as a judge. People might see the word "juridicus" and say "oh that means judge" and think that Dr. Rhoads is correct. But judging is also the responsibility of the legati pro praetore. The legati juridici simply received subordinate cases (see legati juridici, www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0063:entry=legatus-cn). It seems that Dr. Rhoads is hoping that his readers will not understand the governmental systems of the time and will not check the Greek themselves. I think he is fully aware of his own dishonesty on this point.
Quirnius is pretty clearly being described here as a legatus pro praetore even though it is not explicitly said. There is no one mentioned who is in charge of him, and his task is probably of too great importance for a legato juridicus. Also, while Luke does not explicitly call Quirinius a legato pro praetore, it is extremely unlikely that Luke would refer to Quirinius as governing Syria if Quirinius were just a legato juridicus. Who is his superior? Why describe the subordinate as governing the province without mentioning who is actually in charge?
But even if Quirinius were a legatus juridicus, (and it is important to emphasize he almost certainly was not) this would not necessarily connect his role to that of Sabinus. Sabinus was, as Dr. Rhoads states, a procurator. He says "Similarly" which is indeed the correct word. The offices are similar. But they are not the same; legato juridicus is more specific.
Thus it is not justified for Dr. Rhoads to say that Sabinus and Quirinius held the same office. That is speculation which goes against the information we have, both in Luke and in Josephus. But even if they did hold the same office, I think you would agree with me that this is not nearly enough yet to conclude that they are the same person. George Bush and Donald Trump both held the office of president. So we go on.
Dr. Rhoads proposes that Sabinus was of consular rank (Quirinius was indisputably so). What is Dr. Rhoads evidence? That Sabinus defied Varus. This is a very weak argument. You do not have to be the same rank as someone to defy them. You can just be stupid or vain.
And even if they were of the same rank, this hardly justifies concluding that they are the same person. Note the sleight of hand that Dr. Rhoads uses "Not only are the offices of Sabinus and Quirinius characterized as comparable," - yes comparable, but not the same - "they are described as sharing as apparently sharing the same rank, " no, not at all. Sabinus' rank is never described; that was only Rhoads' speculation. At best we can infer that he was of senatorial rank but it seems dubious to suggest he was of consular rank.
Next he points out that Sabinus and Quirinius were sent to deal with the property of the Herods. But the way they deal with it is quite different. Sabinus is rushing to secure it because it is in danger. Josephus does not say that Quirinius went to secure Archelaus' property but to dispose of it. There is no indication in this passage that the property is threatened. Nonetheless, some similarity remains between the actions. So I ask you, if two historical people perform similar actions in dissimilar circumstances, in what instance does this justify conflating the circumstances and speculating that these two people are the same?
Next Dr. Rhoads says "the suggestion that Josephus changed the name to Archelaus, even though his source referred to Herod, does not require mere presumption." But it does require mere presumption. To not be mere presumption, Dr. Rhoads would have to provide evidence for the truthfulness of the claim. But he does not provide evidence that the claim is true, only evidence that the claim is possible- "possibly Josephus relied on a source for his account of the census that did not refer to Archelaus by name" yes it's possible but mere presumption to speculate that this is the case. "Josephus does write King Herod where he had, in the parallel passage of the Jewish War written Archelaus." This is sleight of hand. All it shows is that Josephus might refer to Archelaus as King Herod. It is not evidence that Josephus' source in question would do so. And even if the source would do so, it is not evidence that the source did. We have absolutely no idea what name Josephus' source used and to say that it did not specify Herod Archelaus is indeed mere presumption. As for the idea that Josephus might have had a motive to change his source from Herod the Great to Herod Archelaus, sure, he may well have. People have motives to deviate from their sources all the time. It is incumbent on Dr. Rhoads to provide evidence that he actually did so. He does not, so it is still mere presumption.
This is just some of the objections to be made.
Hi sir, did you read this new book " Five Views on the Exodus: Historicity, Chronology, and Theological Implications" published on April 13th of this month . And one of the author was James Hoffmeier. Any review of this book?
There is also the curious mention of Justin Martyr writing about the year 150 AD to the Emperor Antoninus Pius in his First Apology about the enrollment document itself. He is trying to show Antoninus that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the ancient Hebrew prophecies and he cites the prophecy of Micah that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem 'O you Bethlehem Ephratha..." and he tells Caesar that if he doesn't believe him that Jesus was in fact born in Bethlehem he should look in his own records at "'the taxation done in Syria under Quirinius." Whatever happened to that document we don't know; it was probably destroyed by the Roman Empire during the later persecutions but it is something to think that there still existed in the middle of second century a Roman tax document with the names of Joseph the carpenter who hailed from the city of Bethlehem and Mary his wife and their infant son Jesus written on it and that Justin Martyr probably had seen it himself 150 years later.
I'm not sure where to post this so that it would be most likely to get a response, but your most recent video should suffice. What I have to say regards a theory for the historical identification for the Exodus.
For the most part, we know the Exodus needs to be dated between 1400 and 1200 BC, given the [figurative] time frames given in 1 Kings 6, Acts 13, etc., and even what secular scholarship tells us (e.g., Dr. B. Noonan's research into Egyptian loanwords in Exodus (which you cited yourself), which contains feminine -t nouns, indicating a pre-13th century date due to the near-absolute loss of that ending afterwards).
Your video on the Exodus, and on Jacob & Joseph, indicate that you believe the Hyksos were the rulers that the Hebrews entered Egypt under, and it does make sense. However, after they were overthrown you indicate that's when the Egyptian slavery began. HOWEVER, Exodus 1 clearly states that the slavery did not begin until Moses' day, which would have been about four centuries or so after the entry of the Hebrews, meaning that a number of decades would have passed between the fall of the Hyksos and the beginning of the slavery. Still, this would have been enough time for "a new king, to whom Joseph meant nothing, [to come] to power in Egypt" (Exodus 1:8).
This is where my theory comes into play. In the mid-14th century BC, Akhenaten ruled as Pharoah for a few years and imposed a weird henothestic or monolatrous cult around Aten upon the Egyptians. This was the first time, and practically the last time, anything nearly monotheistic occurred in ancient Egypt. Akhenaten likely had two reasons to become an Atenist: one, Amun-Ra (the patron god of Thebes, a city he had a strong connection to (e.g. his royal title, "Amenhotep, god-ruler of Thebes")), and two, the rapidly rising Hebrews. Aten was considered an aspect of Ra (Donald Redford, Akhenaten: The Heretic King, Princeton University Press, pp. 170-172), Amenhotep (Akhenaten's original name) referred to Amun, and the power of the Thebian priesthood was well-known in the New Kingdom period; the Hebrews - most definitely remaining the hardworking laborers of Goshen - would have also been worthy to gain the loyalty of through religious monism, especially due to their burgeoning strength through numbers (Exodus 1:7). Pretty much, by exalting an aspect of Amun-Ra and focusing on one god, Akhenaten made a very clever political move by appealing to two powerful sectors of Egyptian society.
However, as we know, Akhenaten failed and his attempt to monotheize Egypt fell short. This brings us to the Pharaoh of Exodus 1, who I theorize was Horemheb (r. 1306 BC - 1292 BC). Horemheb, after coming to power, showed some hostility toward Akhenaten's reign, destroying his monuments, weakening the power of the Thebian priesthood, and more (Nicolas Grimal, A History of Ancient Egypt, Blackwell, pp. 243, 303). If he punished Egyptians in this manner, the penalty non-Egyptians (whose contributions to Egypt were undervalued) would have faced could have been much greater, and it was not out of character nor beyond the power of the god-king of Egypt to enslave an entire people group.
This is as far as I have made it in connecting these sequence of events in Egyptian history to the record contained within Exodus. I'm hoping you will see this and give careful consideration to my argument, because I would absolutely love to hear what you have to think about it, especially as you reevaluate your own investigation on the Exodus. Thanks for whatever input you give, God bless.
I think you're being extremely charitable to the opposing position and conservative with your own but never change. Very good. I find it wholly convincing since Josephus' chronology creates too many unlikelihoods but certainly puts an end to this objection.
IP, I know I'm a little late to the game, but what would you make of moving this back a couple of more years and making this the census that is recorded in Res Gestae in 8 BCE?
Thank you for this video.
Bless thee.
Excellent building of a plausible argument! A masterclass 😀🙌🏼
Josephus got spanked
Why would anyone looking at two different ancient manuscripts favour one over the other without good reason, and where one of the authors can be shown to be unreliable? 🤔
@J H, if for no other reason, I would default to the one who can be shown to be the most reliable, and that's Luke.
@@michaelsowerby8198 Josephus was a known and respected historian on the other hand no one knows if “luke” was even a real person
could someone explain how isaiah 13:16 is just?
Elisha the prophet was describing what his servant Hazael would do to the Israelites when he becomes King of Aram
Would you say that it's possible that they are both right? Luke does say that this was the first census when quirinius was governor. This census could be the census from Res Gestae in 8 BCE
How many manuscripts and what quality of Josephus writings?
Very interesting, thank you. It seems to be assumed that Herod the Great died in 4 BC. Where does this come from, and is this date reliable?
Multiple lunar eclipses could have fit the bill for what Josephus was talking about. Most historians seem to zero in on the 4 bc event, even though the 1 bc event makes more sense. If more descriptors were given than “there was a lunar eclipse” we could have a more accurate date. The 4 bc eclipse takes place during Purim. Not enough between the eclipse and Passover would have taken place for word to reach Augustus and his response to be received back if we go with the 4 bc date. There also was a special census for the year 2 bc ordered by the Senate for a new honor given to Augustus.
There was a military leader named quirinius that did a census in 8 BC and the census was done via military, so its likely Luke was attributing the census to him. Check out the book Unearthing The Bible
It’s better than my theory, which is essentially that Herod called for a census, falsifying that it was Quinirius ordered it, in order to find Jesus.
Luke was a doctor by occupation. Making him a detail oriented and reliable source for that time.
😂
Besides the topic in question, is it possible there was a census in 6 bc?