Some meterial akin to the below is late in the last update.
The left side is the lunar-based data for the 14th of Nisan (Passover) in various years of interest.
The right side are the calendar-converter dates for the 14th of Nisan (Jewish calendar).
The middle (between the dashes) has the entries from a Jewish calendar converter for the dates on the left side. As you can see, the calendar converter doesn't agree with the lunar-based dates for the 14th of Nisan:
26 A.D...Sun. Apr. 21 --- Tues. 16th Iyar (32 days later) --- Fri Mar 20 (32 days earlier than the left side)
27 A.D...Fri. Apr. 11 --- Sun 18 Nisan (4 days later) --- Wed Apr 7 (4 days earlier)
28 A.D...Wed. Apr. 28 --- Fri 16 Iyar (32 days later) --- Mon Mar 27 (32 days earlier)
29 A.D...Mon. Apr. 18 --- Wed 18 Nisan (4 days later) --- Sat Apr 14 (4 days earlier)
30 A.D...Fri. Apr. 7 --- Sun 18 Nisan (4 days later) --- Wed Apr 3 (4 days earlier)
31 A.D...Wed. Apr. 25 --- Fri 16 Iyar (32 days later) --- Mon Mar 24 (32 days earlier)
32 A.D...Mon. Apr. 14 --- Wed 16 Nisan (2 days later) --- Mon Apr 12 (2 days earlier)
33 A.D...Sat Apr. 4 --- Mon 17 Nisan (3 days later) --- Fri Apr 1 (3 days earlier)
34 A.D...Thurs. Apr. 22 --- Sat 17 Iyar (33 days later) --- Mon Mar 20 (33 days earlier)
There is not one instance when the converter has the same date for the 14th of Nisan as the lunar-based model, which model you can find at this page:
http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/passover_dates.htm
Which dates are the truth, the left or right side? Or neither? I'm going to assume, at first, that the lunar model is bang-on correct for Passover dates, for Passover always falls on a full moon. I'm trusting that the lunar scientists know exactly when the past had full moons.
Here's two calendar converters, take your choice, they both give the same dates (at this time, anyway):
https://www.hebcal.com/converter/?gd=22&gm=4&gy=34&g2h=1
http://www.hebrewcalendar.net/htdocs/main.en.html
Case 1. When asking the converter to provide the Jewish date for Sunday April 21, 26 AD, it gives a Tuesday 32 after the full moon. Why? Because the holy days on the Jewish calendar rarely fall on new and full moons, as required in the Law of Moses.
Case 2. When asking the same converter for the international date on the 14th of Nisan, 26 AD, it gives a date 32 days before the lunar-based dates for the 14th of Nisan. Why? Same reason.
The round brackets show consistency. That is, the converter is not spitting out dates helter skelter. The converter is consistent. If the converter thinks that the 14th of Nisan was 32 days earlier than the lunar-based date, the middle date is naturally 32 days after the lunar-based date.
At first, as I reported in the last update (some of the material was removed), it appears that there are 32- and 33-day differences due to an extra month (29 days) that the Jewish calendar periodically throws into the year. I jumped to conclusions (it was done in a rush on Monday morning hours before it was time to publish the update, sorry), thinking that, whenever there is a date (within the chart) in the month of Iyar (follows Nisan), that's the year with an extra month (called Veadar or Adar II). Wherever Iyar appears in the chart, that's where there are 32- or 33-day differences, wherefore, I had pegged 26 and 28 AD as the ones with the extra months, but it turns out that it was 25 and 27 AD, the years before the 32-day differences. Just wanted to clear that up.
The extra Jewish month is inserted at the end of the year. Nisan (30 days) is the first month of the Jewish year. There are 354 days to the Jewish year, about 11 shy of the true year. That is, every year, the Jewish calendar comes to the same day of the year about 11 days earlier than the previous year (other factors can change the 11 days slightly). For example, in the chart, Passover in 27 AD is April 11 while Passover in 26 AD is on April 21, showing a 10-day difference (it's probably almost 11). This is a sure-fire way to find whether there was an extra month in any given year. There could not have been an extra month in 26 AD if the following year is 10 or 11 days behind.
When there is an extra month, the following year's dates will be a month further ahead, minus 11 days, for a total of about 18-19 days ahead. Where Passover on 28 AD falls on April 28, that's 17 days further ahead than the previous year, meaning that the extra month was at the end of 27 AD. In the same way, April 25 in 31 AD is 18 days ahead of April 7 in 30 AD, meaning that there was an extra month at the end of 30.
But why, in the years following the long years, does the calculator give Passover dates 32 days earlier than Passover? Shouldn't the calculator be capable for adjusting? One possible solution is that all 12 months of a year are bumped a month closer to the present time, so far as the calculator is concerned, whenever there is a previous long year (13 months). The calculator reaches backward in time, and thinks Nisan is Adar when all months are bumped forward. The converter dates on the right side of the chart are all in Adar whenever there is a long year in the previous year. Here is the chart again (I don't know how to make a perfect chart in html language, sorry):
26 A.D...Sun. Apr. 21 --- Tues. 16th Iyar (32 days later) --- Fri Mar 20 (32 days earlier than the left side)
27 A.D...Fri. Apr. 11 --- Sun 18 Nisan (4 days later) --- Wed Apr 7 (4 days earlier)
28 A.D...Wed. Apr. 28 --- Fri 16 Iyar (32 days later) --- Mon Mar 27 (32 days earlier)
29 A.D...Mon. Apr. 18 --- Wed 18 Nisan (4 days later) --- Sat Apr 14 (4 days earlier)
30 A.D...Fri. Apr. 7 --- Sun 18 Nisan (4 days later) --- Wed Apr 3 (4 days earlier)
31 A.D...Wed. Apr. 25 --- Fri 16 Iyar (32 days later) --- Mon Mar 24 (32 days earlier)
32 A.D...Mon. Apr. 14 --- Wed 16 Nisan (2 days later) --- Mon Apr 12 (2 days earlier)
33 A.D...Sat Apr. 4 --- Mon 17 Nisan (3 days later) --- Fri Apr 1 (3 days earlier)
34 A.D...Thurs. Apr. 22 --- Sat 17 Iyar (33 days later) --- Mon Mar 20 (33 days earlier)
Where April 21 (26 AD) was Passover (middle of Nisan), March 20 is in the middle of Adar. That's how we can know that the calculator thinks Passover was in Adar. Or, to put it another way, March 20 would almost be Passover (i.e. a couple of days off) if there were no extra month before Nisan. Unless I'm misinterpreting the problem, it's as though the calculator doesn't acknowledge the extra month. That is a problem in itself. How can a Jewish-calendar converter not acknowledge extra months? How can anyone pass off such a converter where, roughly every three years, there is an erroneous conversion date, off by an entire month? Or is this the case only for dates around the time of Jesus? Has someone been monkeying with the heads of Christians, to deny them accurate dates? It would probably take me all week long to look into this question. I pose the question for anyone that might like to tackle it. One would first need to find a reliable list of full or new moons for the first century and beyond, testing the converter dates in different periods, perhaps in different centuries, to discover if the out-of-whack situation lingers long after the time of Jesus.
Wherever the middle column has a date in Nisan, it is only two to four days off from the lunar-model claims for Passover. But why should that be? Doesn't modern technology have the ability to get it smack-on right?
The information thus far here is important because Christians using the converters are trusting them. On the question of the Crucifixion's date, there is complete disharmony online. How much of it is the fault of calendar converters? The problem with using 29 AD for the start of Jesus' ministry is that it makes him about 30 years old at that time, so that his birth comes in 1 BC. This may explain why some "scholars" have the birth as far back as 6 BC, in order to undermine the reliability of the Gospel account, or the profession by Protestants that every word in the Bible is Inspired as though by dictation. If the historians have their 4 BC date correct for Herod's death, then either Jesus could NOT have been born in 1 BC, or Luke was wrong in saying that Jesus was about 30 years old at the first Passover mentioned by the gospel of John. Here is what I concluded some years ago:
It is known from the Bible that Jesus was born while Herod was yet alive, and because evidence from Josephus (= Jewish historian of the first century AD) has pinned Herod's death prior to Passover (April 12) of 4 BC, Jesus was born prior to that date, wherefore the first week of March qualifies. So far, so good.
Jesus could not have been born in 5 or 6 BC, as some contend, for it can be shown that he was born most-definitely in 4 BC. It is the Gospel of Luke, in conjunction with John 2:20, that certify His Birthday in 4 BC. Here's how one goes about finding it. First, Luke 3:23 tells that Jesus was about 30 years old when he began his ministry (at the baptism given Him by John the Baptist). Second, Luke 3:1 tells that Jesus started his ministry in the 15th year of Caesar Tiberius. The problem has been that Tiberius started a joint reign with Caesar Augustus in 12 AD, but reigned alone starting in 14 AD, wherefore his 15th year has been debated because it can fall either in 27 or 29 AD. The good news is, one can easily discover which of those two years is correct, and then count backward 30 years to His birth. In neither case will it get us further back than 4 BC.
John 2:20 is key for solving the problem, where we learn that the Jerusalem Temple was in it's 46th year of construction at the near-start of Jesus' ministry. Online, its was found that the temple was started in Herod's 18th year. The bad news is that his 18th year lands in either 20 or 19 BC, but the good news is that it doesn't matter, for this purpose. For when we add 46 years to 20 or 19 BC, we land in 27 or 28 AD, wherefore 29 AD is not an option! That is, it is a concrete matter so far as I am concerned that Tiberius' 15th year was not 29 AD, but 27 AD. Having made that solid conclusion, I then subtract 30 years from 27 AD to find the year of Jesus' birth: 4 BC (not 3 BC because there was no year 0).
I thought it was a great argument. However, this past week was the first time, since, that I found myself looking at the Passover dates for the time of Jesus, to find that the lunar model has the Passover on Monday in the year 29 AD, which should be the year of Crucifixion if the first of three Passovers in John was in 27. I am therefore asking whether the lunar model has it wrong that it was a Monday. I can't see how the lunar model could have it wrong unless it is deliberately wrong to thwart Christians. The scientists would simply go back in time the known periods of lunar cycles, to find the full moon in 29 AD, and, in the meantime, the scientists would keep track of the day of the week at every full moon, not an especially difficult task even if it does take careful and patient work without a computer or calculator.
First of all, I'd like to revisit the timing of the temple. Wikipedia says that Josephus was pronounced (by the Roman senate) king of Jews in 40 BC, according to Josephus, and in 39 BC according to Appius. However, at Wikipedia's Herod article, we read: "Herod went back to Judea to win his kingdom...Three years later [assume 37 or 36), Herod and the Romans finally captured Jerusalem and executed Antigonus. Herod took the role as sole ruler of Judea...Josephus reports this as being in the year of the consulship of Agrippa and Gallus (37 BC), but also says that it was exactly 27 years after Jerusalem fell to Pompey, which would indicate 36 BC. Cassius Dio also reports that in 37 'the Romans accomplished nothing worthy of note' in the area. According to Josephus, Herod ruled for 37 years, 34 of them after capturing Jerusalem."
There we have a few minor inconsistencies, and on top of that we need to trust that historians have their BC dating correct in the related matters pointed out in the quote. We also need to trust that Wikipedia has framed all of its words correctly, for one should always suspect that, in these regards, the anti-Christs who abound in educational channels will keep their education to a bent that denies the real time of Jesus' Crucifixion. Note that Wikipedia doesn't conclude which of the dating options was the correct one. After making the quote above, it doesn't discuss how historians resolved the contradiction of Josephus, where he has the first year of rule both in 37 and 38 AD, for if he ruled for 34 years in Jerusalem, that puts his first year in 38 BC. The idea seems to be that, in Josephus' view, the Romans announced him king very early in 40 BC so that the entire year should be counted as his first year, making the third year in 38 BC, and possibly on the verge of 37.
If all other data is correct, we may not do well to see Herod's first year in 36 because that pushes the 46th year of temple construction to 29 AD, making Jesus at least 32 years old at the time. One might assume that, when Luke used 30 years of age, he had discovered his birthday, and that he was NEARLY 30. That is, he may have been 29 years and nearly 12 months old, for Luke uses "ABOUT 30 years old". If Luke knew Jesus to be in his 30th year, I don't think he would have used "about 30." If Luke knew Jesus to be 31, he would have said so. And if Luke didn't know Jesus' birthday, he might have said, "about 30," which makes 29 AD acceptable as the year of His baptism. Therefore, it looks like one can indeed argue for a Baptism in 29 AD, but only if Herod's first year was in 36.
You won't find only a few Christian webpages reporting Herod's first year in 37/36 AD, for by-and-large, Christians see Jesus' Baptism in 29 AD. But Josephus allows us to see it in 27 AD. If true that Tiberius had joint rule with Augustus in 12 AD, it's quite a coincidence that Josephus is off by 2 years from other reports on Herod's first year, while there are two years to choose from (12 and 14) in Tiberius' first year. There are therefore two systems under discussion by which one may choose the year of the Baptism, and both have 27 and 29 as options.
Can we trust historians on the death of Herod in 4 BC? As I'm reading it, that date was based on Josephus' testimony on the first year of Herod's rule. It suggests that a gamut of historians, or at least the leading historians, decided that, of all the various accounts and data on Herod's first year, Josephus' was strongest. If one includes the year 40, and counts 37 years after that, it land in 4 BC. One article provides this admission: "For just over a hundred years, the question of when Herod the Great died has been dominated by a proposal by the German scholar Emil Schurer." It looks like he's the one that started the 4 BC date for Herod's death. That argument is still strong today.
The latest date for the start of Herod's rule is in 36, which is not the same as saying 32 years before his death, for if his first year was in 36 while Josephus said that he ruled Jerusalem for 34 years, his death is bumped up to 2 or even 1 AD. If we use 36 as the first year, his 18th year lands on 18 BC, and the 46th year after 18 can be either 29 or 30 AD, depending on whether construction started early or not in 18 BC.
Add 18 years to 39, arriving to 21 BC, and then add 46 years to 21 (20 years in BC times and 26 in AD times) 38 year in BC times and either of those, and one lands in 21 or 20 BC, with the 46th year landing either in 26 or 27 AD. That can still work for a Baptism in 27. When I had the 18th year in 20 or 19, I was using, not the years when Herod became sole ruler of Israel, the suing must have been using alternative data that had Herod's first year asking later than 39.
Take your vitamins, have some sugar, and try to follow:
The Anno Domini dating system was devised in 525 by Dionysius Exiguus to enumerate the years in his Easter table. His system was to replace the Diocletian era that had been used in an old Easter table because he did not wish to continue the memory of a tyrant who persecuted Christians. The last year of the old table, Diocletian 247, was immediately followed by the first year of his table, AD 532. When he devised his table, Julian calendar years were identified by naming the consuls who held office that year -- he himself stated that the "present year" was "the consulship of Probus Junior", which was 525 years "since the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ". Thus Dionysius implied that Jesus' Incarnation occurred 525 years earlier, without stating the specific year during which his birth or conception occurred.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini
In Probus' article: "Flavius Anicius Probus Iunior (c. 495 - aft. 525) was a Roman Consul in 525." Note that the latter's date is stated as fact, even though there was no way to know whether Exiguus' dating for him was correct. All dates being relative, I suppose there isn't much to complain about, but maybe there is if his incarnation was not the Birth.
Diocletian's first year is placed (by historians) in 284 AD, which, when added to by the 247 years in the quote above, amounts to 531 AD, perfect, for 532 AD was the first AD year used by Exiguus. It looks like historians used Exiguus' system to date all AD events to the present. And they must have worked backward using the available data, to nail down, as best they could, the correct AD years for many events back to Jesus, the Herods, etc. Therefore, it seems that historians took Exiguus' calendar seriously. However, we should ask whether there were any holes in the data, where there was guesswork on the number of years between certain people / events.
Exiguus was not very long after the first century so that, in fact, he may have had the ability to know how many years transpired between the Crucifixion and the first year of Diocletian. It may have been standard knowledge in his time, or to the historians that he was reading (whose writings may not be known today).
If Exiguus was counting back 532 years to the Crucifixion, then, historians, stretching the history of those centuries about 32 years further back to the Birth / Conception added about three decades of extra time. If Exiguus' calendar started at the Crucifixion, Herod's death should be timed at about 32 BC, but, hopefully, this was not the correct view. If you read Wikipedia's article on Anno Domini, you'll see that the dating system didn't come into use for some centuries, and that more centuries went by before someone thought to use the equivalent of "before the birth of Christ" rather than before the incarnation. It seems that Catholics of the spiritually-dark middle ages were instrumental in bringing this calendar to the world, and so one shouldn't be surprised if they got it wrong by interpreting Exiguus' 1 AD as the first year of Jesus' infancy.
If "incarnation" was referring to the birth of Jesus, why was "Anno Domini" (Year of our Lord) replaced with "After Death"? There is an argument here to view his incarnation with the Resurrection. I don't yet know what sort of Christian Exiguus was, but I can fathom some philosopher types coming to view Jesus' incarnation at the Resurrection, while Orthodox belief would rather view it at the Conception. For the purposes at hand, the question is NOT when that incarnation took place, but rather it's how Exiguus viewed it, and when he thought it took place.
Here's from Wikipedia's article on the man himself:
Because Dionysius did not place the Incarnation in an explicit year, competent scholars have deduced both AD 1 and 1 BC. Most have selected 1 BC (historians do not use a year zero). Because the anniversary of the Incarnation was 25 March, which was near Easter, a year that was 525 years "since the Incarnation" implied that 525 whole years were completed near that Easter. Consequently one year since the Incarnation would have meant 25 March 1, meaning that Dionysius placed the Incarnation on 25 March 1 BC. Because the birth of Jesus was nine calendar months later, Dionysius implied, but never stated, that Jesus was born 25 December 1 BC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysius_Exiguus#Anno_Domini
Actually, Wikipedia's writer may have it wrong and backward. The truth may be that he knew nothing of December 25th, and that the Vatican later came to peg Jesus' birth on December 25 using Exiguus' date for the incarnation. If that's true, the common Protestant charge that December 25th was based on the sun god's birthday looks uncalled for. On the other hand, perhaps the Vatican had started to claim (not necessarily widely) the December-25 birthdate of Jesus before Exiguus' time, and he simply used it naturally to mark the first day of his calendar. Either way, it seems very clear that December 25 was the Birthdate as early as Exiguus. I've not known this before, but I'm asking why that date was chosen? Did Exiguus and his fellow Roman Catholics see Herod's death before December 25 in the year 1 BC? Why?
But the point on the quote above, as well as Exiguus' emphasis on an "Easter tables," is that Easter had to do with the Resurrection, not the Conception / Birth. The apparent fact that he had Passover (always falls near Easter) as the start of his calendar implies incarnation = Resurrection, does it not? The Wikipedia writer(s) seems loath even to bring the possibility to mind. Shouldn't there be some satisfactory explanation for the use of "after death," having the same AD initials as "anno domini"?
Wikipedia's statement, "Dionysius ignored his predecessors, who usually placed the Nativity in the year we now label 2 BC", seemingly suggests that Exiguus viewed the incarnation as the Birth. I've not read anything on this topic before, and so can't comment on "usually placed the Nativity in the year we now label 2 BC." But I am ready to entertain the idea that 1 AD was the first year after the Crucifixion / Resurrection. If the Catholic historians got it wrong by bringing the first year back to the Conception, all sorts of dates for various events should come with problems, which may exist unknown to the masses. One would think that, in the Anno-Domini article, the writer would mention some details on whether Exiguus' calendar fit well, or not, with dates used by previous historians. Nothing of the sort appears.
If the Middle-Age historians stretched history further back by an imaginary 32 years, then some events will be dated earlier than they happened. Something that took place a decade after the Crucifixion could be dated wrongly before the Crucifixion, and from one error, other errors are bound to creep, when using an error as basis for dating other events. It's going to take more than an aspirin to figure out where their dates are right versus wrong. I'm not prepared to try until I come across an article telling of problems in the dating system.
Exiguus' Wikipedia article says, "In his 1605 thesis, the Polish historian Laurentius Suslyga was the first to suggest that Christ was actually born around 4 BC, deriving this from the chronology of Herod the Great, his son Philip the Tetrarch, and the daughter of Augustus, Julia. Having read Suslyga's work, Kepler noted that Christ was born during the reign of King Herod the Great (2:1-18), whose death he placed in 4 BC." Herod's death is often placed in March of 4 BC, so that Jesus' birth needs to come sooner. Possibly, Exiguus started his calendar on March 25 because he thought Jesus was born then. But if he has Jesus' conception on March 25th, then he must have thought that Herod died after that. If the incarnation was intended as the Resurrection, then the true 4 BC was four years before it.
Luke Will Survive the Anti-Christs
The following is from Wikipedia's Anno Domini:
The Gospel of Luke states that Jesus was conceived during the reign of Herod the Great {Luke 1:5-38} (i.e., before 4 BC [not necessarily]) while also stating that Jesus was born when Cyrenius (or Quirinius) was the governor of Syria and carried out the census of the Roman provinces of Syria and Iudaea.{Luke 2:1-3} The Jewish historian Josephus, in his Antiquities of the Jews (ca. AD 93), indicates that Cyrenius/Quirinius' governorship of Syria began in AD 6, and that the census occurred sometime between AD 6-7, which is incompatible with a conception prior to 4 BC. On this point, Blackburn and Holford-Strevens state that "St. Luke raises greater difficulty ... Most critics therefore discard Luke".
I cannot fathom that Luke got this statement wrong. Luke lived in the first century, and was taking records of the apostolic ministry aside from writing one of the Gospels. He wrote the book of Acts, for example, and probably had more than twice as much material that he didn't include for a readership. There is no way that he would consciously make a statement to the effect that Jesus' birth was in 6 or 7 AD. It's Luke himself that has Jesus at 30 while other factors have his birth some ten years before 7 AD. How possibly could Luke have gotten it wrong that Jesus was born during the census of 6-7 AD? Might Josephus have been wrong? That makes more sense. He couldn't always have been correct, and while Luke could make a mistake too, I can't see one of that magnitude. In the article's footnote #43: "Josephus indicates that the census under Cyrenius (i.e., Quirinius) occurred in the 37th year after Octavians (i.e., Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus') victory over Marc Anthony at Acton, which secular historical records date to 2 September 31 BC." If not mistaken, the victory at Acton is considered by historians as Augustus' first year, for I'm reading that the first Roman coin minted for Judea reads the 6th year of Augustus. It's very interesting that the Cravens, honoring the Actons in their motto, use a fesse in the colors of the August fesse, and that Actons use one in colors reversed. It;s good reason to trace Actons to Augustus liners in Acton.
There is venom against Luke, and all of Christianity as a whole, in Wikipedia's article on "Census of Quirinius":
Most modern scholars explain this as [Luke's] error, but the authors of the Gospels were ignorant on many points about the early life of Jesus, and both the Gospel of Luke and Gospel of Matthew put Jesus' birth in Bethlehem in order to match a prophecy in the Book of Micah that the messiah was to come from that place.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius
What does the Bethlehem issue have to do with the census? Well, Jesus was born when Joseph took Mary to register for the census in Jerusalem. Bethlehem is just four miles away. And so the writer perceives that Luke is simply repeating a fabrication of the apostles, where they tried to make Jesus look like the fulfillment of Micah 5:2, in order to "prove" that Jesus was the promised Messiah. The anti-Christs of the world think they have caught Luke with a smoking gun. He lied about the census, they think, in order to provide a means for the birth in Bethlehem of a far-off Nazarene. Is there no other explanation? Well, yes there is:
Various proposals have been made to resolve the [Luke-census] problem - the Gospel text has been mistranslate, the census has been misdated, there were two censuses -- but these are rejected by most scholars for reasons set out by Raymond E. Brown in The Birth of the Messiah (1977, pp.546-555) and in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, "Chronology" (same article).
Oh, well, if Brown says so, the debate's over. There is a census in Acts 5:37 mentioned as being in the days of Judas the Galilean.
Luke says that Augustus ordered a census of the entire Roman world, but Quirinius, they say, issued a census only in the Levant, a small fraction of the Roman world. Might there have been two censuses, therefore'? Might there have been two Quirinius that were both governors of Syria? Not likely: "...Josephus, who clearly states that P. Quinctilius Varus was governor in Syria until after Herod's death...Therefore, some suggest that a census begun by Varus was then completed by and, thus, associated with his successor, which is presumed to be Quirinius."
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/11/01/Once-More-Quiriniuss-Census.aspx#Article
But wait. Varus is said to have ruled Syria only until 4 BC. If Quirinius followed after him, then Quirinius may have been the governor there since 4 BC. "In 8-7 BC, Varus governed the province of Africa. Later he went to govern Syria from 7/6 BC until 4 BC with four legions under his command, where he was known for his harsh rule and high taxes. The Jewish historian Josephus mentions the swift action of Varus against a messianic revolt in Judaea after the death of Roman Client King Herod the Great in 4 BC. After occupying Jerusalem, he crucified 2000 Jewish rebels..." The statement further above that Quirinius is presumed to follow Varus suggests that history doesn't know who it was that immediately followed Varus. It's a good bet that Quirinius was, if not the official governor, then near-so between 4 BC and 6 AD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publius_Quinctilius_Varus
Wikipedia has a list of Roman governors of Syria. Note that the Bassus and Plancus surnames appear early, followed by Marcus Terentius Varro from 25-23 BC. In all the long list of governors, there is only one three-year period with an unknown governor, and that's immediately after Varus...in the three-year period of 4-1 BC. Cover-up? The unknown might have been Quirinius, and the anti-Christs perhaps arranged to bury the historical proof for it.
Anti-Christs do bury education. In the same way that they had an evolution bent in the schools apart from Creationism taught alongside it, and in the same way that they fight to eradicate Christianity in all forums of life, if possible, they will work to bury the best online Christian articles until the bulk of online education favors the anti-Christs. There is no other group in all of humanity so guilty of deception, unfair play, and hoaxes than the anti-Christs.
In 1764, a marble fragment known as the Lapis Tiburtinus ("the Tivoli stone"), was found in Tivoli, Italy, recording two separate "supplications" (officially decreed days of thanksgiving to the pagan gods) and a "triumph" (a victory parade) for an official who had governed Asia as proconsul and had governed Syria twice as Legate of the divine Augustus. Though the fragment lacks the official's name, some external details suggest Quirinius....http://www.thefountainpen.com/s/showstory?id=13440
The article doesn't state how the stone words the two legate terms of the same man, but Wikipedia's list of Syrian governors doesn't show one man taking the position twice at this period. It therefore looks like Mr. Unknown was Quirinius. It looks like Luke is vindicated, a hero standing tall over his enemies.
The massacre of Jews by Varus may have been part of the following: "Judas of Galilee, or Judas of Gamala, was a Jewish leader who led an armed resistance to the census imposed for Roman tax purposes by Quirinius in Iudaea Province around 6 AD. The revolt was crushed brutally by the Romans. These events are discussed by Josephus in The Jewish War and in Antiquities of the Jews and mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles." It sounds very similar to the Varus persecution. If Josephus meant that Quirinius came 27 years after a certain event rather than 37, that places Judas the Galilean in 4 BC too. But I can't toss that idea into the ring with any heavy weight until reading the timing particulars of Josephus as he writes on Judas. However, I'm reading, "Some [scholars] try to claim that Acts 5:37 refers to a different census."Is it impossible for ancient dates to be in error? Are we to trust the dating system of historians without knowing how they go about it? It might be a good read to find those who find fault with the dating system as pertains to the first century BC.
There is no way that the apostles would have attempted such a fabrication, trying to make a census of 6-7 AD fit the life of Herod who died in 4 BC. That in itself would have been the end of the hoax, for everyone old enough would have known the truth. They would have said to the apostles, "Are you nuts? There was no census in the days of Herod?" And they would have said, "Are you nuts? Herod didn't try to kill all the infants," if it wasn't true. If the apostles were trying to pass off a hoax, they, like anyone, were bound to make mistakes, but they would not have made such a fatal or glaring mistake as to use a false-census story 10 years out of whack. And they would not have fabricated the story of Herod killing infants unless they wanted very badly to expose the hoax. The fabrication of a Jesus-hoax belong to the subjective fantasies of the anti-Christs.
If they wanted real-bad to expose the hoax, the apostles would have claimed to the Greek churches that Augustus ordered a census in "all the inhabited world," if in fact it did not happen. All the Greeks would have known that it didn't happen, if it didn't happen. If it was a fabrication in the first place, they wouldn't have used "all the inhabited world." They would have minimized it to a census without mention of its particular geography so that the Greek and Roman churches wouldn't have found the statement immediately suspect upon reading it.
I DIDN"T KNOW UNTIL NOW that this Biblical Quirinius married Aemilia Lepidus, daughter of Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, husband of Junia Caepio Secunda! Aemilia's Wikipedia article doesn't tell who her mother was. I wrote on Quirinius in the first update of August, 2014, telling that he appointed Annas as the high priest, and while I knew then that Quirinius married Lepidus, I didn't realize that he may have married Junia's Caepio's daughter. I don't always have the time or memory to go deeper into my topics.
To anyone jumping into this page as a new reader, I have been seeking, for about two years, the birth of Joseph Caiaphas, the killer of Christ along with Annas (the latter's father lived in Syria), from the bloodline of one of the three Junia-Caepio sisters. My theory in a "Caiaphas" link to "Caepio" includes his descent from Julius Caesar, the one who adopted Augustus and was therefore responsible for the ascent of Augustus. The latter was a devoted fighter for the Julian cause and bloodline. He did not betray Julius' circle, but was part of it, setting the Roman empire up with leaders from the Julian bloodline, wherever possible. The theory is that at least one Junia Caepio (see Wikipedia's article on their mother, Servilia Caepionis) was, not the daughter of Servilia's husband, but the daughter of Julius Caesar, for it's roundly known that he was having a long-standing affair with Servilia. The theory is that her husband didn't care about the affair, and allowed them to be like a married couple. And the official husband therefore agreed to allow Servilia's daughter(s) with Caesar to have his own Junius name.
The point for this discussion is that Quirinius may have married the granddaughter of Julius Caesar, explaining Quirinius' closeness to Augustus. Quirinius thus appears to be Augustus' trusted man in the centralized Syria theater, the very theater that Julius himself struggled to win. In other words, it was not by some stroke of luck, or by his hard / successful work, that Quirinius ascended to high places in Syria, but he is expected to have held high positions for Augustus from far earlier than 6-7 AD. In his Wikipedia article: "In 12 BC he was named consul, a sign that he enjoyed the favour of Augustus. From 12 - 1 BC, he led a campaign against the Homonadenses, a tribe based in the mountainous region of Galatia and Cilicia, around 5 - 3 BC, probably as legate of Galatia." "Probably" is a big word.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirinius
During the birth of
Perhaps the Wikipedia writer has the motive of placing Quirinius in Galatia to keep one from arguing better that he was in Syria by the time of Jesus' birth. The biblearchaeology.org article above: "Others suggest that Quirinius held some other office at the time of Jesus'; birth, a tenable hypothesis especially since Quiriniuss precise capacity at this time is unknown." Was he, or was he not, a legate in Galatia during the time of Jesus' birth? He was fighting a people group living as far east as Cilicia, and that's smack beside Syria.
He married Aemilia "around 3 AD," and if I recall correctly, he made Annas the high priest in 6 AD, by which time Caiaphas may have already been married to Annas' daughter. In this picture, it makes Caiaphas somewhat suspect from the line of Junia Secunda. Note that a QUIRINius-like Kiren surname, listed with Cairns (first found in the same place as Sadducee-suspect Seatons), use only footless martlets, symbol of French Josephs. The Kiren/Cairn martlets are in the colors of the Carn pelican. German Kirns (Rhineland) share the same chevron as French Chaplins, kin of English Josephs. Moreover, the English Chaplins/Kaplans, first found in the same place as English Josephs, were linked to the English Roet Coat while German Roets share the sleeping moon of Karens/Kerns! The Shield-and-Chief color combination of Roets and Kaplans is used also by Carnys (gauntlet hand), but with the same pheons in Chief as Pilate's. While I trace the pelican-using Langs to Langhe of Cuneo, that's the area of Saluzzo, while the the Shield-and-Chief color combination above is used also by Saluzzo's. Note that the Carny hand with sword can be construed as the erect sword of Bistones.
My claims of the past have been that the Sabine entity of Quirites was from the Curetes of Crete, whom in myth founded parts of Caria (see Sarpedon), where I trace "Kern," the sleeping moon, as well as one Roet motto term. Note that while masters share the Caria-like motto term of Roets, the Masters share the griffin heads (same colors, same design) with Chaplins/Kaplins. Plus, I traced the Crichtons/Creightons, first found in the same place as Kirens/Cairns, to Curetes. While all of this may support a trace of these surnames to Cretans in Caria, yet the fact that it's linking in multiple ways to the two Joseph surnames, while Quirinius may have married the bloodline of Joseph Caiaphas, may indicate that the surnames trace to him in particular.
The Masters were even first found in the same place as Amyntes-suspect Mynetts, and Amyntes was of a family ruling in Galatia! Amyntes' descendant was in Akmonia, where I trace the Assmans that share a white unicorn with Masters. The UNIcorn was resolved to be code for the Una-river line to "Junius" (the Una river of Illyricum was resolved to be mythical Juno). The red mural crown with the white Master unicorn is used by Lurch's/L'Archers with a white dragon. Lurch's were resolved to be from Lurco, father-in-law of APPIUS CLAUDIUS Pulcher (could be of the pelican code), the latter adopted by Marcus Livius Drusus (Levi-line suspect) of the direct family that produced Servilia Caepionis. Note that Quirinius' first wife was CLAUDIA APPIA, a potential Appius-Pulcher liner. A Publius Pulcher was instrumental in making Amyntes' father the high priest of the Phrygian great-mother goddess, the known extension of Rhea in Crete. The Amyntes line in Akmonia went on to rule Cilicia on behalf of the Julian circle, the anti-Christ beast, but Cilicia is where Quirinius' elements can be expected too.
One might ask whether the uniCORN is also code for the QUIRINius line. The Cornell/Cornwall surname, with stars in the format and colors of the Kerin/Cairns martlets, uses a raven but calls it a "CORNISH chough," a phrase having a QUIRINIUS-like term. As Salyes were on the Durance river, one can trace the Cornell/Cornwall/Carnell motto (LA VIE durante) to the Salyes, especially as the Coughs/Cuffie's (Caiaphas suspects) and Hoffs are using versions of the Sale bend, the latter using fleur-de-lys in colors reversed from the same of June's, the latter first found in the same place (Cambridge, where a Masters motto term traces) as Caepionis-suspect Capone's and Julians. The Sale's and the Durance have already been traced hard to the two main rivers on the east side of mount Sabina, i.e. where the Quirites cult had origins, and that's also where Roets and Sabines-suspect Safins/Savone's (same place as Roets, beside Cornwall) were traced. The raven was a symbol of mythical Coronis and Cyrene, and it just so happens that Quirinius (his alternative name, Cyrenius) was governor of both Crete and Cyrene. Both the heraldic crown of Crone-like Crauns, and the mural crown, sometimes called a coronal crown, was resolved to be code for the Coronis line. I read that Bistones of Cyrene used an erect sword as their god, but you can find such a sword in the Crest of Irish Kerns.
Therefore, the Bistones line to the Crusaders and Freemasonry trace very likely through Quirinius, but let's not neglect the Caepio-related and Cyrene-based Massey / Masci / Massena bloodline (probably included Masters) evident in the Assman / Asman surname. Meschins were from the Bessin, and Meschins share a version of the Mussel Coat who in-turn trace to Musselburgh, in Lothian, where Kerins/Cairns were first found. As the Maccabees = Hasmoneans were suspect from a Massena line, it tends to suggest Quirinius ties to HASMONeans in AKMONia. Crone's look linkable to Asmans.
Quade's are a branch of Mackays, first found in Sutherland, and then the Sutherland surname uses the three stars of raven-using Cornells/Cornwalls, relevant because Mackays are a branch of raven-using Mackie's/Mackeys. If the Cornell/Cornwall stars are a version of the Kerin/Cairns martlets, it links potential Quirinius liners to the Maccus vikings. Expect Quirinius liners to trace with Quade's and Mackays to Cowes and Newport in the Isle of Wight, off the Hampshire coast i.e. where Josephs and Kaplans were first found. That works. The Kern-suspect Stars should trace from the Stura valley of Cuneo to the Stur river flowing toward the Hampshire coast. Again, the Sturs, first found in Hampshire, are using three horizontal bars in the colors of the same of Leavells, though the other Leavells share the pile with Cowes'.
The line of Amyntes through Akmonia went on to birth Quadratilla of Cilicia, who married Laevillus, suspect with Leavells, first found in the same place as English Roets. Quadratilla and her father, Quadratus Bassus, were traced hard to Quade's, who share the black wolf head with Caiaphas-suspect Houghs/Hoffs. Moreover, German Roets were first found in THURINgia, which traces to the Durance-related Turano river, one of the two major rivers on the east of mount Sabina. Thuringia was the home of Bassus-suspect Basina, the first Merovingian queen. Her husband's tomb was found with many gold bees, and so it's obvious that Basina traces to the Bessins and Bistone's who not only use bees and the same Coat, and not only share the black-on-white bend of Coughs, Houghs, and Sale's, but use the erect sword. It tends to assure that this bloodline links to the Kerns/Kerins/Kierans/KIRINs.
The Chiaro/Claro surname can now be suspect as part of the Kierans, and, lo and behold, the Charo variation of Chiaro's is in the motto of English Josephs! Excellent. It can now form some good basis for tracing Quirinius to the Claro's = Sinclairs, who lived in Midlothian, where the Kirens/Cairns were first found! The latter are the ones sharing the footless martlet with French Josephs! The Chiaro's/Claro's share the red bull with the Savona's/Sabine's. Italian Savona's: ravens in now-illegal silver on gold, suspect with the gold and silver bars of Quintus Caepio, Servilia's grand-daughter. Publius Pulcher was pegged by some historians as the son of another Servilia Caepionis, the daughter of Quintus Caepio above. That's just one good reason as to why the Caepio treasure (50,000 gold bars each 15 pounds) is expected to trace to Amyntes' family. Another good reason is that the Galatians to which Amyntes belonged trace excellently to the Gauls of Toulouse, where Caepio secured his vast treasure.
These traces are so compelling that I'm viewing them as facts. Quirinius is therefore suspect with a Curetes / Carian / Cyrenian family of peoples that produced the Clarus location on the Caria-Lydia border. In the same way that Charo's are also "Claro," Clarus may have been named after "Caria." Clarus was home to the false-prophet cult of Mopsus/Muksus, otherwise known to be from Pamphylia, near Mokissos/Mocissus (where "Muksus" should trace) in the Galatian area controlled by Amyntes. "Amyntes" is also suspect with the "HAMOND" surname, first found in the same place as Mynetts and Massins/Masons, and very traceable to Hamon de Massey/Masci, who lived in the same place as where the Meschins of the Bessin ruled (Cheshire). It appears that the census of 6-7 AD was officiated by a proto-Sinclair liner, but also one that may have linked to the Caiaphas bloodline in multiple ways.
Muksus was traced dependably to the Mochs/Mouchers, one of which has an erect sword with a rare sword-handle design (rare at houseofnames), that of Dunns too who trace to Dunbars of Moucher-like Mochrum, though Dunbars were predominantly of Lothian (perhaps at the Duns location between East Lothian and Berwick). This is said because I've recently found the GERNers/Garners/Corners using the Moch / Dunn sword design, and in both colors of the Moch sword, but also because Lothian is where Kerins/Cairns were first found, suggesting that Gerners/Corners are a branch of Kerins. Moke's (same place as Leavells) use a "CURA" motto term and likely the Sinclair rooster (because Sinclairs trace to Mopsus' city of Clarus). The theme remains the same. Scottish Mochs/Mochrys (erect scimitar) can be using a colors reversed version of one Cornell Shield because these Mochs share the same red lion as the other Cornells. Bank on the red lion and the red fesse of Mochrys being of the Alans and Stewarts.
The DUNham-Massey (also Dunham-Masci) location of Hamonds is suspect with the Dunns, and then while the Mackay bear traces to Berwick, that's right beside Duns. The Hamond motto traces to Rimini, where Maschi's were first found, and beside Fano, the Macey-related line to Fanano. The Nons, who use the same fesse as the Arms of Fanano, are in the Master motto. From the last update: "Look at the Heeding variation of Hede's (Arms of Fanano?), and compare its fesse and white-on-blue crescents to that of NONs (listed with Nevins), for this can identify Hede's as NUNeaton liners. I suppose that this may trace Eatons to Hede, between the Meu river and Dol." The point here is that Musselburgh, home generally of Seatons, is at HADDington while Mea's/Meighs, using the Haddington cross (same type as Sinclair cross) in colors reversed, have been traced solidly to the Meu river. The Mea crosslets are also those of Albins/Aubins, but the colors of both Albins/Aubins and Albino's are conspicuous with the colors of Irish Kerns (their Coat in-turn suspect with the Stars and Settle's). Irish Kerns even use leopard FACE's while Face's/Fessys use the Mea cross in both colors.
The trefoils of Albino's were traced to Rods/Rode's and to Henri IV of Rodez not long before I solidly discovered (second update of this month) the Henrys on the Meu river. But Henrys (Brittany, same as the Meu river) share footless martlets with the Lothian Kirens/Cairns. That Henry discussion was a real eye-opener, but here it's found that the three Henry martlets are in the positions of, and in colors reversed from, the Kiren/Cairns martlets. Thus, the fact that the Sinclair-based kings of England were called, Henry, argues for a trace of both Claro's (the original name of Sinclairs) and Cairn liners to Henri of Rodez, and to the Joseph bloodline. Plus, I read an article where the Hampshire Josephs were from a Henry Joseph or a Joseph Henry (can't recall which), explaining why French Josephs likewise use the footless martlet.
Ask why the Henry-suspect Enrico's are using the Moden/Modey fretty, for Modens are suspect with Modena, where Albino's were first found. The Albino's were first found near Bologna, and that picture was all related to the Setta and Savena rivers to Bologna, and to this it can be added that while Massa-Carrara (north-west Italy) was suspect with the Maso sea peoples of Caria, there is a Carrara surname, first found in Bologna, and using a wheel much like the Catherine wheel owned by Catherine ROET, a surname that can trace to "Rodez / Rod." See also the Carons/Cairons/Carots (same place as the Bessin) likely using a version of the Caen fretty.
According to my computer, Wikipedia removed the family tree of Servilia Caepionis at her article. Why? After that, one needed first to click to the Brutus article from her page, and then click the family-tree link at Brutus' article. I arrived to the family tree in that way on multiple occasions, but even that is now no longer available, at least for my computer. All I get is a "Family Tree" subtitle without the link made available. Are the Wikipedia writers trying to hide something???
Back to the topic before the heraldry discussion crept in. The writer above who lashes out at the apostles claims that most scholars date Luke and Acts a decade or more after the destruction of Jerusalem. How can these scholars know such a thing??? Couldn't they have motives for dating them so late? Isn't it more likely that Luke was a middle-aged man while traveling with Paul so that he wrote Luke and Acts well before 70 AD? Yes, and that's why you can assume "most scholars" to be duped by their own ignorance. The more they study the Bible, the more they go off the true track. They start off on the false track, and only go deeper into it as they study further. Pure logic, pure expectation for the mal-intents.
If the apostles needed to fabricate a story on how Jesus was born in Bethlehem, they wouldn't have needed a census taking place a decade after Herod's death. The account of the apostles themselves had Mary and Joseph escaping this same Herod while they were in Bethlehem. Were the apostles so confused or brain-dead that they would then use a census a decade after Herod's lifetime to get Mary to Bethlehem in the first place? That just can't be true. The account of the apostles had Herod dying while Joseph, Mary and Jesus were escaped from Bethlehem. Are they then going to claim that Jesus was born a decade after Herod's death? That just can't be true. Shake the anti-Christ from your shoulder, and know that those who take that position are in a rush to find fault with the Scriptures.
If the disciples wanted to fabricate a trip of Mary to Bethlehem, they could have said that she needed to visit a sick and close relative a few weeks before giving birth, and that she was needed to be of dire help until after she gave birth. Although certain people in Nazareth would have known such a story to be untrue, the masses would not have been able to disprove it, though the masses could easily disprove the census story if indeed there was no Roman census in about 4 BC.
It is agreed that there has been no other historical source that reported a census in about 4 BC, and especially not a Rome-wide census. But there are other explanations for the apparent error in Luke. There are two sentences of concern, but note that they are not written as one sentence. Here they are: "And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This first census was when Quirinius was governing Syria" (Luke 2:1-2). I have a version of an ancient text (in my interlinear) that shows the period at the end of the first sentence. Therefore, possibly, the second sentence was added later by someone who erred, confusing one census with another. But this may be a cheap and unnecessary fix.
Of BIG NOTE, it says "first census," implying at least one more later under the same authorities. It can mean one under Quirinius in 4 BC, and another one a decade later by the same governor. The anti-Christ didn't mention this "minor" detail. Of further note, Luke didn't say that Quirinius was a governor, but used a verb, "governing Syria." More than one type of the rulership position of the Romans can be understood as "governing." At times, when a legate / governor was temporarily absent, someone else stepped in to fill the void.
Luke's first sentence tells the reason for the trip to Jerusalem / Bethlehem, and the second sentence seems to have a double purpose, the main one to give the timing, and to suggest that Quirinius was involved in the census. Yet it doesn't say that Quirinius' was officiating over it, not at all necessarily meaning that he wasn't. The only face-value reason for mentioning Quirinius is to give the timing. Not necessarily when he was legate, but when he was some other sort of ruler in Syria. Apparently, there is no known source that has him with a position in Syria during 4 BC.
The solution to the problem may be the difference between XXXVII and XXVII. That's 37 versus 27 in Roman numerals. Perhaps Josephus had taken some jot-down records of Quirinius, and later, when he got around to using them for his book, due to a printing error, or a smudge from a spilled drink, or a tear on his scroll, he wrongly wrote 37 years after, when the fact the truth was 27 years after, landing, not in 6 AD, but in 4 BC. In that case, there would be absolutely nothing wrong with Luke 2. However, this is not the only possible explanation, and so far as I know about this controversy, there may be other ways to date Quirinius as legate in 6-7 AD.
Anyone taking the position that Jesus was born in 6-7 AD needs to contend with a Jesus not yet 24 years old in Tiberius' 15th year. This is why the anti-Christs would chose 29 AD for that 15th year rather than so-much-as mention 27 as a possibility, for if Jesus had a baptism in 27, not only he, but John the Baptist, was only about 20 years young. It's hard to imagine, especially in Israel, teens having serious religious followings. It's hard to imagine the Pharisees taking John the Baptist seriously at 21. There is a big difference between 20 and 30.
The article below gives a Christian viewpoint on the census controversy. It's a milder approach and respects Luke while dealing with the problem:
Skeptics frequently make the mistake of issuing the charge of contradiction against the Bible writers when two statements or facts simply differ with each other. McGarvey articulated this principle clearly in 1891: 'Two statements are contradictory not when they differ, but when they cannot both be true'...
...It is true that thus far no historical record has surfaced to verify either the governorship or the census of Quirinius as represented by Luke at the time of Jesus' birth prior to the death of Herod in 4 B.C. As distinguished biblical archaeologist G. Ernest Wright of Harvard Divinity School conceded: "This chronological problem has not been solved" (1960, p. 158).
...No one questions the historicity of the second census taken by Quirinius about A.D. 6/7, despite the fact that the sole authority for it is a single inscription found in Venice.
https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=907
Josephus mentions the Quirinius census too, but some wonder whether the census on the Venice stone was of a period before 6 AD. The article makes a good point, that the second sentence of Luke did not intend to point to the official governorship of Quirinius in 6 AD, but to an earlier governorship of the same man in the same place: "In addition, historical sources indicate that Quirinius was favored by Augustus, and was in active service of the emperor in the vicinity of Syria previous to and during the time period that Jesus was born. It is reasonable to conclude that Quirinius could have been appointed by Caesar to instigate a census-enrollment during that time frame, and his competent execution of such could have earned for him a repeat appointment for the A.D. 6/7 census (see Archer, 1982, p. 366). Notice also that Luke did not use the term legatus -- the normal title for a Roman governor. He used the participial form of hegemon that was used for a Propraetor (senatorial governor), or Procurator (like Pontius Pilate), or Quaestor (imperial commissioner) [McGarvey and Pendleton, n.d., p. 28]..." I think that's an excellent point. Prior to 6 AD, Quirinius may have been a temporary ruler of Syria in the absence of a legate.
There is a big difference between a census of the entire world versus one in Apamea alone. "The Lapis Venetus (stone of Venice) is the first century B.C. tombstone of a Roman officer, Amelius Secundus. It contains a list of his accomplishments, including that he was in charge of the census at Apamea (a city in Syria) under Quirinius." The stone uses the word "LEgate" for Quirinius' position, but unfortunately, there is no way to date the census from all that's written on the stone, which inscription you can read at the article below, written by an anti-Christ having a good handle on Roman history.
http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Apamea
The anti-Christ directly above mentions a few other census ordered by Augustus, and thus actually helps to make us understand what Luke was referring to with "all the inhabited world:
As far as provincial censuses go, we have our second best information from Gaul. Censuses under Augustus were performed there in 27 B.C., 12 B.C., and 14 A.D. (this last was completed only two years later due to local unrest)...we also know that a census was taken in Cyrenaica (North Africa) in 6 B.C. Our best information comes from Egypt, since from that province alone we actually have countless papyrus census returns. Egyptian administration was unique, for like that of Sicily, it was simply the system employed by its previous ruler (Queen Cleopatra), which the Romans found convenient to continue. In Egypt there was a fourteen-year cycle [of censuses]...
It's not necessary to view Luke's statement as a single census taken in all of Rome at the same time. The fact may be that Augustus, with the Senate in his defence, ordered that all of the empire should be enrolled, and that the leaders then went to work planning it, and spreading the work over many years, province by province. Some of the plan may have been scrapped so that some parts never did get the census. Luke only says that Augustus decreed it everywhere, but this bull would naturally have met with varied resistance in all/most of the provinces. Mr. Anti-Christ even says, "Another reasonable possibility is that Augustus did issue a decree that all provinces be assessed, but without ordering that it all happen at once." That is, in case you've misread the statement, Augustus did, as a fact, not as a "reasonable possibility," decree a global census. Luke was bang-on, apparently.
The second paragraph of the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy expands Luke 2:2 by saying "in the 309th year of the Era of Alexander, Augustus put forth an edict." The Era of Alexander began in 336/335 B.C., so the 309th year would be 28/27 B.C., exactly the time when provincial censuses begin (though not in all provinces:
This is a good point for Christians to use, that census' started during the reign of Herod. I am reading from more than one anti-Christ that no census could have taken place in Judea before 6 AD, but this opinion is born more in their hatred of Christianity than in what was possible or impossible. It's wasn't necessarily impossible for Rome to conduct a census in Judea prior to it being an official Roman province, for Herod, the Roman puppet, was king in Judea from long before 6 AD. All that Rome needed for a smoother census there was a wink from Herod. Getting it may not have been easy, but the possibility is there. He argues: "Even if Quirinius had been governor a previous time, conveniently during the reign of Herod the Great, and conducted a census, that census could not have included Judaea, for Judaea was not under direct Roman control at that time..." We get the idea, but he also adds, at another spot, claims by Josephus that Augustus ordered the census to count the money of Herod Archelaus, Herod's son and successor. That squarely puts the drive, or the initial Roman motive, for the global censuses on the Herod family. Perhaps Augustus was feigning a Rome-wide census as an excuse to get at various Herod fortunes. That can explain why history doesn't record a Rome-wide census, at least not in every place at roughly the same time.
Luke 2:1 speaks as though Augustus made the decree recently, not way back in 27 BC. But the decree made in 27 may not have gone well, and the decree was attempted again around the end of Herod's life. At some point, Herod may have come to understand that Augustus' decree had the motive of finding the Caepio gold in the possession of Herods, and with the family of Caiaphas. After 27 AD, Herod began to renovate the Jerusalem temple, bringing in large stones from the north of Jerusalem, and as I say that he had some Caepio gold, he may have been bringing the stones in to hide the treasure, not just within the stones or in some temple cavities that he arranged, but possibly in the quarries where the stones were taken. In 70 AD, the temple stones were overturned likely in search of this gold. The Templars thought that some gold may have survived deep below the temple floor. Quirinius may have known about this because he was, likely, married to a granddaughter of Junia Caepio.
Carrier becomes completely dishonest with himself: "But if Luke meant an Augustan decree issued in 28 B.C. first applied to Judaea when Quirinius was in office, then Luke 2:2 becomes completely intelligible: this is the first Augustan census of Judaea--in other words, the first time the Augustan decree affected Judaea, which happened to be when Quirinius was governing Syria..." He finds it acceptable for Luke to be referring to an early decree while the actual census that affected Jesus' mother didn't happen until 38 years later, and he says this is the only things that can be understood as intelligible. But how is it intelligible if it contradicts the trip to Nazareth under the time of Herod?
For the same stubborn hatred, the anti-Christ above argues that, just because Quirinius was in Cilicia, "it does not follow that he had any kind of command in Syria [in BC times]". Yes, but no one is saying that he did. The Christians are just saying that he might have. The possibility is there. It can explain Luke. But the anti-Christ doesn't want to hear that. He wants nothing short of Luke's painful death. He argues from this hatred. Everything he says on the issue is colored by it. He views the Christian seeking a good explanation as a desperate schemer, and he even points out the most-ridiculous Christian opinions if it can help his case. In other words, he's closed to a solution; he wants nothing short of condemnation for the Bible. It's not necessary for the Christian to make the case that Quirinius was a quasi-governor in 4 BC; it's only necessary that a case is possible. Wikipedia even says that the Syrian legate between 4 and 1 BC is unknown. The possibility is there. Can the anti-Christ say, "The possibility is there"? No, he cannot. If he did, he wouldn't be able to write his articles against Luke, and all the fun from a barn-burning party would be over.
His name is Richard Carrier. He says:"It simply makes far more sense to read Luke as saying just what he says, rather than trying to lap on layers of undemonstrable and implausible hypotheses grounded in nothing but fantasy." I could use his own argument against him: It simply makes far more sense to read Matthew as saying what he says, that Jesus was born while Herod was alive, rather than trying to lap on layers of...anti-Christian venom." As the first disciples seemingly contradict themselves on the timing of the birth, don't we have a right to seek a plausible solution apart from being insulted? Does Carrier wish to help us find a decent plausibility? If Quirinius was in Germany in 4 BC, there would be a better case for calling Christians fantasizers, but as he was a governor beside Syria as 4 BC approached, it's plausible that he became a Syrian ruler or legate, in 4 BC, in the absence of Varus. The possibility is there, c'mon say it.
Carriers/Carie's (Languedoc) use stars in their Chief in the colors of the Kerin/Cairns martlets. Possibly, Mr. Carrier was a Quirinus liner, and perhaps he knew it for being of Masonic circles. The white-on-blue lamb in the Carrier/Carie Coat links likely to the same in the Arms of Grasse (southern France). English Carriers use the same bend as Torcys, first found in Burgundy. Italian Carriers are listed with the Carrara's using a vertically split Shield in the colors of the horizontally-split Shield of Austrian Turners. German Turners are an obvious branch of all three Thor surnames, and even share a wheel with Italian Carriers/Carrara's. The besants if Austrian Turners reminds of the same of Dumas', the write-up of which points to the Lamas' using the Grasse lamb, which for me traces the Carriers and Turners to Julia Maesa and her sister, Julia Domna Bassianus. Besants had been seen in the Coat of Carons/Cairons along with a Chief in the two colors of the Carrier/Carie Chief. I had not yet bumped into Mr. Carrier's webpage when doing the earlier heraldry. Torcys are suspect from Tuareg Berbers / Mauritanians / Amazons / Numidians, and a motto term of Masters and another surname (can't recall which) treated earlier (in the Master discussion above) use motto terms like "TUAReg."
It's hard to be gracious to Mr. Carrier when he seeks to destroy everyone's Faith. He is one of those anti-Christs who too-easily sees fabrication all over the New-Testament pages. In his view, many things spoken by Luke in Acts were complete lies to prop Jesus up as the expected Messiah. This sort of things seem to be Carrier's forte; he has spent considerable time in his life to debunk Jesus. He's probably from the Caiaphas bloodline.
Carrier's page is a good source for finding historical data, in spite of his war against Biblical infallibility. In his section, "Was Herod Alive in 2 B.C.," he mentions a Christian (Jack Finegan) claiming that Mr. Unknown was Quirinius. Carrier spends a lot of time on an insignificant theory concerning 2 and 1 BC, and, of course, in the bottom line, he cannot prove that Mr. Unknown was not Quirinius. The best he can do is to take jabs at Finegan. Carrier writes: "...and since Josephus accurately proceeds through the years of [Herod's] reign, including several that have independent corroboration (such as "the seventeenth year" of Herod's reign, securely placed by Josephus in 20 B.C., see 17.4)..." His purpose is to show that Herod died in 4 BC rather than 2 BC, but Finegan uses eclipse data to find the Bethlehem star, and consequently to come to some of his dating schemes, but for me, this is not justifiable because the Bethlehem star was likely a fabrication of the Gnostics. Why would God glorify Jesus with astrologers and their gold? Forget it. A "star" can't float to a housetop without entire towns following it. No one could glean that a comet came to a stop over Bethlehem. Forget it. Carrier wastes his time arguing against Finegan.
It's very important to accept that someone inserted the magi into Matthew, for someone may also have slipped the second sentence of Luke 2 into Luke. That would be a fast way to resolve the problem, but let's not rush into that because Mr. Unknown was likely a quasi-legate between 4 and 1 BC. Here's Carrier's version of that situation, writing always as though he's got sirens blaring in an emergency caused by Christians lying to the world. Note how he slips Piso in with the brackets:
But first I will mention the several preliminary reasons why this "theory" is absurd. First, we know that Quintilius Varus, not Sulpicius Quirinius, was governor of Syria from 7 B.C. to just after Herod's death in 4 B.C. (and Calpurnius Piso came after him), while before him Sentius Saturninus held the post from 10 B.C. to 7 B.C., and he took the post immediately after Marcus Titius, who probably had been appointed in 13 B.C. (as three years was the typical length of a governorship). In other words:
13-10 B.C. Marcus Titius
10-7 B.C. Sentius Saturninus
7-4 B.C. Quintilius Varus
4-1 B.C. Calpurnius Piso
There is no room here in which to fit Quirinius
Of course there's no room, for Carrier stuffed Piso in Mr. Unknown's place. It's interesting that the Piso/Pisa surname, from the Pisa area smack beside Massa-Carrara, uses the Massin/Mason lion. It tends to expose that Calpurnius Piso may have been a king-Massena / Numidian line.
Apparently, Carrier is referring to Lucius Calpernius Piso Caesonius, brother of a wife of Julius Caesar. Wikipedia's article of Syrian governors links to him as a possible match for Mr. Unknown. "Piso was consul in 15 BC, and shortly thereafter engaged in Mediolanum as proconsul. Cassius Dio refers to him as governor of Pamphylia in the years 13 to 11 BC; his province probably included Galatia. In 11 BC, he was sent to Thrace as legatus pro praetore in order to put down a revolt...Piso may have also been proconsul of Asia and legate of Syria, but this is disputed." In other words, Piso was close to Syria when having some relevancy in Pamphylia and Galatia, making him a candidate for Mr. Unknown. Yet, Carrier and his fellow barn-burners note that Quirinius was also of Galatia / Asia, and though getting closer to Syria than Piso, they shut the door in Quirinius' face because that would solve the Luke-2 problem. Is that any way for good scholars to behave?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Calpurnius_Piso_(consul_15_BC)
Over and over again, Carrier is closed to any interpretation or event not established by an historical record, but as many things did take place not recorded by records, Carrier becomes an unsatisfactory mouth piece for the other side, not to be fully respected by the Christian side. He's an articulator with missing teeth chewing on the flesh of Christianity. He's fully sure that Jesus was born in about 6 AD, an idea that allows him to argue for a fabrication by Matthew in regards to a Birth during the time of Herod. I myself find some of Matthew 2 to be a fabrication of Gnostics, and that's the chapter where we find Herod's massacre of the infants. But I don't expect the entirety of Matthew 2 to be a fabrication. One can, a generation or more after the Crucifixion, fabricate a story of three magi visiting the manger on a dark night, for no one, essentially, would be able to disprove it. But to fabricate the killing of many boys two years old or younger in the Bethlehem area is quite another matter. Such a thing would draw the swift attention of readers, and the anti-Christians of the Jerusalem area would have been able to debunk that claim easily.
It's not logical that early Christians would fabricate anything that their enemies could easily debunk, but then Gnostics were not normal, and I think one should allow the possibility that Gnostics did pen some of Matthew 2. A Gnostic is a mystic (on the insane side, if you will) who looks for, and reads, too much into Scripture with his "inner light," and thus changes the Intention of Scripture to his own fancies. Matthew 2:15 wrongly claims that the coming forth of Jesus and his parents from Egypt is a fulfillment of Hosea 11:1. That's the sort of erroneous thing expected of a Gnostic. It's one thing to seek the true intention of a text, but quite another to view all Scripture, as a rule, with hidden messages between the lines that are not apparent at the face-value text.
One might debate whether Jesus was brought to Egypt at all (some Gnostics may have had origins there), but where Matthew 2 has Jesus' parents returning to Nazareth after the death of Herod, the timing can be historical in spite of the problems of that chapter. I would not accept a date for Jesus birth any later than about 4 BC because that already makes him a rather young man in the 15th year of Tiberius.
Where Luke says that John the Baptist was conceived in the days of "king Herod," the anti-Christs would see Herod Archelaus, not Herod "the great." Wikipedia says, "Herod Archelaus (23 BC - c. 18 AD) was ethnarch (not king) of Samaria Judea, and Idumea (biblical Edom) from 4 BC to 6 AD." There must have been a reason that the Romans did not allow him to don a royal crown. By all indications, Augustus didn't like him, and eventually banished him in 6 AD, which amounted to a convenient excuse to make Judea a Roman province at that very time. As Luke 1:5 says of the Baptist's father, "There was in the days of king Herod of Judea a certain priest by the name of Zechariah," it tends to corroborate Matthew's account of Jesus' birth under the official king, Herod "the great."
If we entertain the Carriers of the world, one might expect that, instead of saying that John was conceived in the days of Herod Archelaus, Luke would have said in the days of Archelaus' successor (Coponius). Carrier would need to show that Archelaus was still ruling when Quirinius was made the Syrian legate in 6 AD. If no historical documents exist to support it, then Carrier, by his own standards used against Christians, isn't permitted to argue for it. Wikipedia's article on the province of Judea, which uses the secular BCE and CE terms, conveniently neglects the timing in 6 AD for Quirinius' rise to legate and Archelaus' banishment. In my admittedly hasty opinion, therefore, it looks like the historical timing was not conducive to equating Luke's king Herod with Archelaus, or the anti-Christs would pounce all over it in all the related articles. Coponius was the first governor of Judea province, but his timing within 6 AD is likewise not attempted or discussed in Wikipedia.
The transition to Roman rule was as follows, from a Josephus quote on Carrier's page. One should ask whether Carrier ever allows a fabrication or stretched truth made by Josephus:
Quirinius was a man of the Senate, who had held other offices, and after going through them all achieved the highest rank. He had a great reputation for other reasons, too. He arrived in Syria with some others, for he was sent by Caesar as a governor, and to be an assessor of their worth. Coponius, who held the rank of knight, was sent along with him to take total command over the Jews. And Quirinius also went to Judaea, since it became part of Syria, to take a census of their worth and to make an account of the possessions of Archelaus.
Where Carrier discusses his leanings on perceiving Luke's Herod as Archelaus, he concludes, "Hence I believe Smith could be right, and thus Luke intended the year of John's birth to be 5 A.D." Carrier conveniently spreads as much time as possible between the conception of John and Quirinius, or as deep as possible into Archelaus' time. But he doesn't say the timing of Archelaus' banishment, though he would have pounced all over it if he knew it was on the late side of 6 AD. The earlier in 6 AD his removal from power, the less likely Luke is referring to Archelaus. With a view of 5 BC for the Baptist's birth, it tends to argue that Carrier had reason to believe that Herod was banished early in 6 AD.
The webpage below on Coponius has his Judean coin dated in what can only be construed as early 6 BC: "...the date {again in Greek letters} under the palm indicates the thirty-sixth year of Augustus' principate {= 6 CE}, the year of Quirinius' census." But others, including Carrier, have it as the 37th year and landing in 6 AD, pushing it as late as possible into 6 AD. Therefore, as at least some viewed it as his 6th year (starting in 31 BC), it appears that Archelaus was gone by early 6 AD. The battle was in September, 31 BC. With the end of Augustus' first year in the fall of 30 AD, the end of his 31th year was in 1 AD, meaning that his 6th year ended in September of 6 BC. That means that Coponius coin can be dated between the autumns of 5 and 6 BC.
During his treatment of this "king Herod" subject, Carrier uses the argument that Luke used wrong official titles for Quirinius and Pontius Pilate, wherefore Carrier can assume that Luke's use of "king Herod" is not necessarily Herod "the great." But even at Wikipedia, a prefect, the official title for Pilate, is said to be a governor. Coponius, a prefect, is said to be a governor. A prefect is a governor of lower rank than legate, but still it's a governor. And Luke does not use a wrong title for Quirinius, but rather says that he was "governing" (verb) Syria at Augustus' decree. It's not necessary that he was a legate in Syria at the time.
Between the time of Archelaus' removal and the time of the census decree, some time had to pass. One can assume the passing of months before the entire program was set up sufficient to have the province register. According to Luke 1:56, Mary stayed in Judea with the Baptist's mother (Elizabeth) for "about three months" before returning home (to Nazareth, we assume). She stayed until after the birth of John, for Luke 1:39 has Mary going down to Elizabeth's while she was in her sixth month.
Luke then has Mary leaving Nazareth for Bethlehem before she birthed Jesus, which amounts to a return trip to Judea soon after she got home from Elizabeth's place. The text doesn't tell the time between the birth of John and the "immaculate conception." If the local order to register for the census had taken place while Mary was at Elizabeth's, nor far from Jerusalem, she would not yet have gone home to far-off Nazareth, but would have gone directly from Elizabeth's to the enrollment depot. The local order to register was, therefore, after the birth of John. Carrier needs to view the Archelaus>Coponius transition during Elizabeth's pregnancy, which may or may not give Carrier trouble for viewing the king of Luke 1 as Archelaus. Where the local order to register would have been months (unknown number at this point) after Archelaus was banished, it places John's conception close to the banishment of Archelaus. The Luke account of Zechariah in the temple was earlier than John's conception, for Luke 1:24 says that Elizabeth didn't become pregnant until after the angel appeared to Zechariah in the temple. It's not as though Carrier didn't realize all this by looking at Luke 1, which, you can be sure, he went through with a fine-toothed comb seeking any argument possible to spoil Christianity.
The point is that, if the birth of John the Baptist revolved around the time of Quirinius, Coponius, and the usurpation of Judea by the Roman emperor, Luke would have mentioned them rather than Archelaus. Don't you think? But the account of Matthew 2, even though there are suspicious elements involved with it, had to be written with some truth as regards the timing of Jesus' birth in the reign of Herod "the great." If the entirety of Matthew 2 was a fabrication, having parallels with no realities, the writers could just as well have, and indeed are expected to have, made Herod Archelaus the villain...if indeed Jesus was conceived in Archelaus' time. There needs to be a reason that Matthew's Jesus was made born in the time of the first Herod, and the reason ought to be that it was the reality. In Luke 2, as the Carriers of the world see it, Jesus isn't born until after the end of Herod Archelaus; in Matthew, the elder Herod is still alive while Jesus is born. That contradiction can be cleared up where Luke's Herod is likewise the elder one, and while Quirinius was a lower-level governor of Syria previous to 6 AD. Where is the problem? Only in the fantasies of the anti-Christs?
The Craven fesse is in the colors of the same of Mochs/Mochrys, while the other Mochs/Mouchers use the same sword, in the same colors, as Gernons/Corners. The latter are suspect, for the time being, as a line from Quirinius. It just so happens that Cravens are traced in their write-ups to early Crauen variations, suggesting a branch of the Crauns/Crane's. The latter are the ones that enlightened me on their trace to mythical Coronis, and to the Ceraunii on the Urbanus river, next to the Maezaei. That trace came years after I had traced Cravens to "KRVati," the local name of Croatians, and it just so happens that the Urbanus river (Sorb- / Krv-like term) is in the Croatia theater, suggesting that Croatians trace to Chora on Patmos (off the Caria coast, and closer to Sarpedon in Crete). Years before knowing this about Crauns, Gore's/Core's, who use a Coat like that of Crauns, were traced to GORski of Croatia, and the Gore motto was to Servitium (likely the proto-Serbs) near the mouth of the Urbanus.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Roman_provinces_of_Illyricum%2C_Macedonia%2C_Dacia%2C_Moesia%2C_Pannonia_and_Thracia.jpg
The Gerner/Corner sword is acting as a bend positioned in the sinister direction, and Masci's, Massena's and Rasmussens/Assamans together use a sinister bend while Massena's and Crauns (crown in Crest) share the patee cross. The Assmans/Rasmussens (Ass-like Hesse) use a uniCORN under their bend, and the bend is in the colors of the Craun fesse. The As(s)man/Ashman bend (not in the sinister direction) is suspect with the Massey and Crone fleur-de-lys, which are white, the colors of the Gernon/Corner fleur-de-lys. The Asmans, said to be Saxons, are suspect with the Saxons that Maccus/Magnus met in Cheshire (i.e. home of Masseys). Ashleys, the crown of which may be a Coronis symbol, were first found in Cheshire. Ashburys (Derbyshire, beside Cheshire) are using what looks like a version of the Craven Coat, but with a fesse in the colors of the Acton fesse. Astbury is in East Cheshire, near Maccus-suspect Macclesfield, and the fesse of Astburys (Cheshire) is likewise in the colors of the Ashbury fesse. The Astbury martlets may therefore be a version of the same in the Kerins/Cairns Coat. Davenports (Hamond / Ash chevron?), from Astbury, share the fitchee cross with Cravens. Meschins of Cheshire married Skiptons of Craven (Yorkshire). Add it all up, and
Carriers's page is not an off-the-cuff article. It's a massive effort that may be part of a wider group, the purpose of which is to ruin Christianity in the last days. He repeatedly urges his readers to see his page on the borrowing of Luke from Josephus, a very giant leap on Carrier's part. Josephus wrote so many things that any Jewish writer is bound to echo some of it. Josephus had so may sources that he may even have had some Christian writings. He may have considered it part of his career to inspect Christian writings. Perhaps he borrowed from Luke, since Luke was bound to write long before Josephus, not vice versa. Carrier's assumption that Luke is the one who borrowed is ludicrous. Here Mr. Carrier becomes nutty. Josephus didn't start writing until after he joined the Romans, and well after 70 AD. Would Luke, in his old age, become a fan of a Jewish traitor? Don't make us laugh at you, Mr. Carrier. He says in his opening paragraph: "...Luke is consciously and significantly drawing on Josephus to supplement his use of Mark and Q and to create the appearance of a real history..." Luke was just looking around at other writers for to find a way to fabricate his part of the Jesus story, as best he could. Mr. Carrier, you are a jerk.
http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html
In his second paragraph, the anti-Christ spells it out further: "This thesis, if correct, entails two things. First, it undermines the historicity of certain details in the Christ story unique to Luke, such as his account of the Nativity, since these have been drawn from Josephus, who does not mention them in connection with Jesus, and thus it is more than possible that they never were linked with Jesus until Luke decided they were. This does not prove, but provides support for the view that Luke is creating history, not recording it." The seed of hell has been planted. If you can't see through Carrier, you're likely going to become one of his victims. Actually, it's best for Christianity that he has come out point-blank with this garbage, and where he says, "in order to draw material from the Jewish War, Luke could not have written before 79 A.D., and could well have written much later," he's betrayed common sense. You are welcome to read his article, but, personally, having read a few paragraphs, I can't stomach the rest.
