Ālea iacta est — “The die has been cast” pic.twitter.com/6PX1kYwlzj
— Learn Latin (@latinedisce) February 28, 2026
Roman Census A Sham?
4,264 Views |
44 Replies |
Last: 9 days ago by Redbrickbear
Sam Lowry said:TexasScientist said:Sam Lowry said:TexasScientist said:Sam Lowry said:TexasScientist said:Johnny Bear said:TexasScientist said:LIB,MR BEARS said:TexasScientist said:
Was the purported Roman Census that brought Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem invented history?
let me cast this article before you.
It is certainly not "empirical" evidence. Perhaps it shouldn't be empirical evidence you seek though.
https://crossexamined.org/really-census-time-caesar-augustus/
Seems to me they are grasping at straws in this explanation.
Seems to me you are constantly grasping at straws to justify your atheistic beliefs.
The question is not whether there were ever Roman censuses, but rather was there one during the times of Jesus's conflicting birth naratives, much less was there ever one that required the residents of the Roman Empire to travel and register at the locality of their ancestral homes (1,000 years prior)? Of course the answer is there was none - nada nunca.
Luke was a smart guy and would have understood that. So would his audience. There's no reason to infer such a mass uprooting from the text. More likely Joseph simply owned property in Bethlehem. Nor do we even know that the registration mentioned in the gospel was a census. There were other types of registration, e.g. loyalty oaths, that were required of Roman subjects from time to time.
Luke 2:1-3 records that Caesar Augustus ordered a census (or enrollment) of the Roman world. Luke 2 1 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while[a] Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register.
It was some kind of registration. There's no indication that everyone returned to their ancestral homes of 1,000 years before. Luke's audience would have found that idea as absurd as you do.
4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.
I agree, Luke 1:4 is absurd. Roman censuses generally didn't require uprooting families to travel around to the town of family origin. They registered with a Roman Censor where they lived. There is no record of any census during this time in Herod's reign. There is no historical evidence to support Luke's claim. It's clear Luke's message is a theological message for the purpose of getting Jesus out of Nazareth into Bethlehem in order to fit Luke's prophetical narrative about a Messiah.
You're assuming it was a census. You're also assuming a census would have been completed in all parts of the empire in a single year. Neither is necessarily true. The mention of the house of David is of course there for theological reasons, to emphasize that Joseph was of that lineage. It doesn't mean he went back to a place he'd never lived just because of his ancestry. Property and ancestry were closely intertwined in his culture. He most likely went to register in Bethlehem because his main holdings were there (which was because he belonged to the house and lineage of David).
You're assuming it wasn't. I've never seen or heard of there being any required registrations other than a census by Rome during that period inf and around the turn of the century. But you are right, it is there for theological reasons only. The idea that Joseph (Jesus family) were propertied gentry with substantial holdings is a reach and doesn't square with the text of the Gospels. I'm not familiar with the house and lineage of David being wealthy 1,000 years later.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
TexasScientist said:Sam Lowry said:TexasScientist said:Sam Lowry said:TexasScientist said:Sam Lowry said:TexasScientist said:Johnny Bear said:TexasScientist said:LIB,MR BEARS said:TexasScientist said:
Was the purported Roman Census that brought Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem invented history?
let me cast this article before you.
It is certainly not "empirical" evidence. Perhaps it shouldn't be empirical evidence you seek though.
https://crossexamined.org/really-census-time-caesar-augustus/
Seems to me they are grasping at straws in this explanation.
Seems to me you are constantly grasping at straws to justify your atheistic beliefs.
The question is not whether there were ever Roman censuses, but rather was there one during the times of Jesus's conflicting birth naratives, much less was there ever one that required the residents of the Roman Empire to travel and register at the locality of their ancestral homes (1,000 years prior)? Of course the answer is there was none - nada nunca.
Luke was a smart guy and would have understood that. So would his audience. There's no reason to infer such a mass uprooting from the text. More likely Joseph simply owned property in Bethlehem. Nor do we even know that the registration mentioned in the gospel was a census. There were other types of registration, e.g. loyalty oaths, that were required of Roman subjects from time to time.
Luke 2:1-3 records that Caesar Augustus ordered a census (or enrollment) of the Roman world. Luke 2 1 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while[a] Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register.
It was some kind of registration. There's no indication that everyone returned to their ancestral homes of 1,000 years before. Luke's audience would have found that idea as absurd as you do.
4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.
I agree, Luke 1:4 is absurd. Roman censuses generally didn't require uprooting families to travel around to the town of family origin. They registered with a Roman Censor where they lived. There is no record of any census during this time in Herod's reign. There is no historical evidence to support Luke's claim. It's clear Luke's message is a theological message for the purpose of getting Jesus out of Nazareth into Bethlehem in order to fit Luke's prophetical narrative about a Messiah.
You're assuming it was a census. You're also assuming a census would have been completed in all parts of the empire in a single year. Neither is necessarily true. The mention of the house of David is of course there for theological reasons, to emphasize that Joseph was of that lineage. It doesn't mean he went back to a place he'd never lived just because of his ancestry. Property and ancestry were closely intertwined in his culture. He most likely went to register in Bethlehem because his main holdings were there (which was because he belonged to the house and lineage of David).
You're assuming it wasn't. I've never seen or heard of there being any required registrations other than a census by Rome during that period inf and around the turn of the century. But you are right, it is there for theological reasons only. The idea that Joseph (Jesus family) were propertied gentry with substantial holdings is a reach and doesn't square with the text of the Gospels. I'm not familiar with the house and lineage of David being wealthy 1,000 years later.
Looks like we have Tax Assessments, Loyalty oaths, and Military conscription censuses going on throughout the era. Different assessments... at different times... for different reasons.
Not to mention whatever ones are taking place that are held but don't come down to us 2,000 years later. (not exactly the kind of info likely to be preserved for hundreds of years after)
I also assume its logical to conclude Rome's various client kingdoms were also engaging in similar practices for their own reasons of State.
1. Tax Assessment. Augustus instituted periodic apographa (registrations) for direct taxation and for updating property rolls. Papyrus census returns from Egypt (e.g., P.Oxy. 255 [AD 48] and P.Giss. 40 [AD AD 1]) show households ordered to appear in ancestral locations so land and lineage could be matched to liability.
2. Oath of Loyalty. The Res Gestae Divi Augusti 34 records empire-wide sworn allegiance to Augustus in 3 BC; censuses often doubled as loyalty oaths, possibly explaining the phrase "all the world" (Gr. oikoumen).
3. Military Conscription. Although Jews were exempt from legionary service, Rome still enumerated males of service age; local genealogical archives ensured accuracy.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:TexasScientist said:Sam Lowry said:TexasScientist said:Sam Lowry said:TexasScientist said:Johnny Bear said:TexasScientist said:LIB,MR BEARS said:TexasScientist said:
Was the purported Roman Census that brought Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem invented history?
let me cast this article before you.
It is certainly not "empirical" evidence. Perhaps it shouldn't be empirical evidence you seek though.
https://crossexamined.org/really-census-time-caesar-augustus/
Seems to me they are grasping at straws in this explanation.
Seems to me you are constantly grasping at straws to justify your atheistic beliefs.
The question is not whether there were ever Roman censuses, but rather was there one during the times of Jesus's conflicting birth naratives, much less was there ever one that required the residents of the Roman Empire to travel and register at the locality of their ancestral homes (1,000 years prior)? Of course the answer is there was none - nada nunca.
Luke was a smart guy and would have understood that. So would his audience. There's no reason to infer such a mass uprooting from the text. More likely Joseph simply owned property in Bethlehem. Nor do we even know that the registration mentioned in the gospel was a census. There were other types of registration, e.g. loyalty oaths, that were required of Roman subjects from time to time.
Luke 2:1-3 records that Caesar Augustus ordered a census (or enrollment) of the Roman world. Luke 2 1 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while[a] Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register.
It was some kind of registration. There's no indication that everyone returned to their ancestral homes of 1,000 years before. Luke's audience would have found that idea as absurd as you do.
4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.
I agree, Luke 1:4 is absurd. Roman censuses generally didn't require uprooting families to travel around to the town of family origin. They registered with a Roman Censor where they lived. There is no record of any census during this time in Herod's reign. There is no historical evidence to support Luke's claim. It's clear Luke's message is a theological message for the purpose of getting Jesus out of Nazareth into Bethlehem in order to fit Luke's prophetical narrative about a Messiah.
Luke's account IS historical evidence of a census during the reign of Herod. The only reason people feel he got it wrong is because it conflicts with what the historian Josephus recorded. But there is plenty of evidence that it was Josephus who was in error, rather than Luke. Historians have noted that Josephus had made similar chronological errors before with other historical events.
And there isn't any historical evidence that families were NOT required to return to their hometown for a census during the reign of Herod in Judea at the time. So to argue that Roman censuses "generally" didn't require it therefore it didn't happen is arguing from silence. Roman law allowed each province to conduct affairs as they saw fit, and Herod could have conducted a census under Roman direction which required everyone to return to their homeland. In 104 AD, the prefect in Egypt, while under Roman rule, did exactly this - he ordered a census requiring everyone to return to their homeland. (Deissman, Adolf. "Light from the Ancient East. (Classic Reprint)." Forgotten Books, 2016. pp 270-272)
Known historical evidence from Josephus and Roman records places the Quirinius census in 6 - 7 AD, long after Herod the Great's death in 4 BC. Josephus describes the census under Quirinius as a direct result of Judea becoming a Roman province after the deposition of Herod Archelaus in 6 AD - a decade after Herod the Great died, making it impossible for the same census to occur during his reign. Historians don't regard Josephus as historically erroneous. He is a primary detailed source for the period - as opposed to the anonymous author of Luke, who is clearly writing with theological objectives. Roman censuses (for valuation and taxation purposes) required registration where they lived or owned property, not for the purpose of returning to ancestral homes.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:TexasScientist said:Sam Lowry said:TexasScientist said:Sam Lowry said:TexasScientist said:Johnny Bear said:TexasScientist said:LIB,MR BEARS said:TexasScientist said:
Was the purported Roman Census that brought Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem invented history?
let me cast this article before you.
It is certainly not "empirical" evidence. Perhaps it shouldn't be empirical evidence you seek though.
https://crossexamined.org/really-census-time-caesar-augustus/
Seems to me they are grasping at straws in this explanation.
Seems to me you are constantly grasping at straws to justify your atheistic beliefs.
The question is not whether there were ever Roman censuses, but rather was there one during the times of Jesus's conflicting birth naratives, much less was there ever one that required the residents of the Roman Empire to travel and register at the locality of their ancestral homes (1,000 years prior)? Of course the answer is there was none - nada nunca.
Luke was a smart guy and would have understood that. So would his audience. There's no reason to infer such a mass uprooting from the text. More likely Joseph simply owned property in Bethlehem. Nor do we even know that the registration mentioned in the gospel was a census. There were other types of registration, e.g. loyalty oaths, that were required of Roman subjects from time to time.
Luke 2:1-3 records that Caesar Augustus ordered a census (or enrollment) of the Roman world. Luke 2 1 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while[a] Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register.
It was some kind of registration. There's no indication that everyone returned to their ancestral homes of 1,000 years before. Luke's audience would have found that idea as absurd as you do.
4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.
I agree, Luke 1:4 is absurd. Roman censuses generally didn't require uprooting families to travel around to the town of family origin. They registered with a Roman Censor where they lived. There is no record of any census during this time in Herod's reign. There is no historical evidence to support Luke's claim. It's clear Luke's message is a theological message for the purpose of getting Jesus out of Nazareth into Bethlehem in order to fit Luke's prophetical narrative about a Messiah.
Luke's account IS historical evidence of a census during the reign of Herod. The only reason people feel he got it wrong is because it conflicts with what the historian Josephus recorded. But there is plenty of evidence that it was Josephus who was in error, rather than Luke. Historians have noted that Josephus had made similar chronological errors before with other historical events.
And there isn't any historical evidence that families were NOT required to return to their hometown for a census during the reign of Herod in Judea at the time. So to argue that Roman censuses "generally" didn't require it therefore it didn't happen is arguing from silence. Roman law allowed each province to conduct affairs as they saw fit, and Herod could have conducted a census under Roman direction which required everyone to return to their homeland. In 104 AD, the prefect in Egypt, while under Roman rule, did exactly this - he ordered a census requiring everyone to return to their homeland. (Deissman, Adolf. "Light from the Ancient East. (Classic Reprint)." Forgotten Books, 2016. pp 270-272)
Known historical evidence from Josephus and Roman records places the Quirinius census in 6 - 7 AD, long after Herod the Great's death in 4 BC. Josephus describes the census under Quirinius as a direct result of Judea becoming a Roman province after the deposition of Herod Archelaus in 6 AD - a decade after Herod the Great died, making it impossible for the same census to occur during his reign. Historians don't regard Josephus as historically erroneous. He is a primary detailed source for the period - as opposed to the anonymous author of Luke, who is clearly writing with theological objectives. Roman censuses (for valuation and taxation purposes) required registration where they lived or owned property, not for the purpose of returning to ancestral homes.Your Egyptian example is an instance where people returned for a census, specifically to report on their property holdings, not ancestral towns for tribal registration. I don't believe most historians would speculate a Roman legate like Quirinius would conduct a 4 BC census in Herod's kingdom, since Judea was a client kingdom, not a Roman province, until 6 AD.
Bart Ehrman, is that you?
Bruisers Burner Phone said:TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:TexasScientist said:Sam Lowry said:TexasScientist said:Sam Lowry said:TexasScientist said:Johnny Bear said:TexasScientist said:LIB,MR BEARS said:TexasScientist said:
Was the purported Roman Census that brought Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem invented history?
let me cast this article before you.
It is certainly not "empirical" evidence. Perhaps it shouldn't be empirical evidence you seek though.
https://crossexamined.org/really-census-time-caesar-augustus/
Seems to me they are grasping at straws in this explanation.
Seems to me you are constantly grasping at straws to justify your atheistic beliefs.
The question is not whether there were ever Roman censuses, but rather was there one during the times of Jesus's conflicting birth naratives, much less was there ever one that required the residents of the Roman Empire to travel and register at the locality of their ancestral homes (1,000 years prior)? Of course the answer is there was none - nada nunca.
Luke was a smart guy and would have understood that. So would his audience. There's no reason to infer such a mass uprooting from the text. More likely Joseph simply owned property in Bethlehem. Nor do we even know that the registration mentioned in the gospel was a census. There were other types of registration, e.g. loyalty oaths, that were required of Roman subjects from time to time.
Luke 2:1-3 records that Caesar Augustus ordered a census (or enrollment) of the Roman world. Luke 2 1 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while[a] Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register.
It was some kind of registration. There's no indication that everyone returned to their ancestral homes of 1,000 years before. Luke's audience would have found that idea as absurd as you do.
4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.
I agree, Luke 1:4 is absurd. Roman censuses generally didn't require uprooting families to travel around to the town of family origin. They registered with a Roman Censor where they lived. There is no record of any census during this time in Herod's reign. There is no historical evidence to support Luke's claim. It's clear Luke's message is a theological message for the purpose of getting Jesus out of Nazareth into Bethlehem in order to fit Luke's prophetical narrative about a Messiah.
Luke's account IS historical evidence of a census during the reign of Herod. The only reason people feel he got it wrong is because it conflicts with what the historian Josephus recorded. But there is plenty of evidence that it was Josephus who was in error, rather than Luke. Historians have noted that Josephus had made similar chronological errors before with other historical events.
And there isn't any historical evidence that families were NOT required to return to their hometown for a census during the reign of Herod in Judea at the time. So to argue that Roman censuses "generally" didn't require it therefore it didn't happen is arguing from silence. Roman law allowed each province to conduct affairs as they saw fit, and Herod could have conducted a census under Roman direction which required everyone to return to their homeland. In 104 AD, the prefect in Egypt, while under Roman rule, did exactly this - he ordered a census requiring everyone to return to their homeland. (Deissman, Adolf. "Light from the Ancient East. (Classic Reprint)." Forgotten Books, 2016. pp 270-272)
Known historical evidence from Josephus and Roman records places the Quirinius census in 6 - 7 AD, long after Herod the Great's death in 4 BC. Josephus describes the census under Quirinius as a direct result of Judea becoming a Roman province after the deposition of Herod Archelaus in 6 AD - a decade after Herod the Great died, making it impossible for the same census to occur during his reign. Historians don't regard Josephus as historically erroneous. He is a primary detailed source for the period - as opposed to the anonymous author of Luke, who is clearly writing with theological objectives. Roman censuses (for valuation and taxation purposes) required registration where they lived or owned property, not for the purpose of returning to ancestral homes.Your Egyptian example is an instance where people returned for a census, specifically to report on their property holdings, not ancestral towns for tribal registration. I don't believe most historians would speculate a Roman legate like Quirinius would conduct a 4 BC census in Herod's kingdom, since Judea was a client kingdom, not a Roman province, until 6 AD.
Bart Ehrman, is that you?
Bart is his hero
TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:TexasScientist said:Sam Lowry said:TexasScientist said:Sam Lowry said:TexasScientist said:Johnny Bear said:TexasScientist said:LIB,MR BEARS said:TexasScientist said:
Was the purported Roman Census that brought Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem invented history?
let me cast this article before you.
It is certainly not "empirical" evidence. Perhaps it shouldn't be empirical evidence you seek though.
https://crossexamined.org/really-census-time-caesar-augustus/
Seems to me they are grasping at straws in this explanation.
Seems to me you are constantly grasping at straws to justify your atheistic beliefs.
The question is not whether there were ever Roman censuses, but rather was there one during the times of Jesus's conflicting birth naratives, much less was there ever one that required the residents of the Roman Empire to travel and register at the locality of their ancestral homes (1,000 years prior)? Of course the answer is there was none - nada nunca.
Luke was a smart guy and would have understood that. So would his audience. There's no reason to infer such a mass uprooting from the text. More likely Joseph simply owned property in Bethlehem. Nor do we even know that the registration mentioned in the gospel was a census. There were other types of registration, e.g. loyalty oaths, that were required of Roman subjects from time to time.
Luke 2:1-3 records that Caesar Augustus ordered a census (or enrollment) of the Roman world. Luke 2 1 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while[a] Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register.
It was some kind of registration. There's no indication that everyone returned to their ancestral homes of 1,000 years before. Luke's audience would have found that idea as absurd as you do.
4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.
I agree, Luke 1:4 is absurd. Roman censuses generally didn't require uprooting families to travel around to the town of family origin. They registered with a Roman Censor where they lived. There is no record of any census during this time in Herod's reign. There is no historical evidence to support Luke's claim. It's clear Luke's message is a theological message for the purpose of getting Jesus out of Nazareth into Bethlehem in order to fit Luke's prophetical narrative about a Messiah.
Luke's account IS historical evidence of a census during the reign of Herod. The only reason people feel he got it wrong is because it conflicts with what the historian Josephus recorded. But there is plenty of evidence that it was Josephus who was in error, rather than Luke. Historians have noted that Josephus had made similar chronological errors before with other historical events.
And there isn't any historical evidence that families were NOT required to return to their hometown for a census during the reign of Herod in Judea at the time. So to argue that Roman censuses "generally" didn't require it therefore it didn't happen is arguing from silence. Roman law allowed each province to conduct affairs as they saw fit, and Herod could have conducted a census under Roman direction which required everyone to return to their homeland. In 104 AD, the prefect in Egypt, while under Roman rule, did exactly this - he ordered a census requiring everyone to return to their homeland. (Deissman, Adolf. "Light from the Ancient East. (Classic Reprint)." Forgotten Books, 2016. pp 270-272)
Known historical evidence from Josephus and Roman records places the Quirinius census in 6 - 7 AD, long after Herod the Great's death in 4 BC. Josephus describes the census under Quirinius as a direct result of Judea becoming a Roman province after the deposition of Herod Archelaus in 6 AD - a decade after Herod the Great died, making it impossible for the same census to occur during his reign. Historians don't regard Josephus as historically erroneous. He is a primary detailed source for the period - as opposed to the anonymous author of Luke, who is clearly writing with theological objectives. Roman censuses (for valuation and taxation purposes) required registration where they lived or owned property, not for the purpose of returning to ancestral homes.
Most scholars acknowledge that Josephus has made significant errors:
- He misdates the construction of the Samaritan temple on Mt. Gerizim by about three hundred years;
- He dates his "Tales of the Tobiads" in the first century BC, while most scholars agree that it happened in the third century BC;
- He writes that Herod was 15 years old when he was given the territory of Galilee, but according to Schurer, Millar, and Vermes in their work The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, volume 1, p. 275, he was off by ten years;
- He has made chronological errors and had reported events out of sequence - an example is in his Antiquities Book 18, where he writes about Pilate in 27 AD, but then jumps back to an event eight years earlier, then jumps back again to 27 AD;
- He has mistakenly duplicated the same event as happening at different times, a result of drawing from multiple, dissimilar sources (D.R. Schwarz, Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity)
This fact can not be understated: your entire argument that Luke is wrong is fully predicated on the fact that you believe Josephus to be right. But the above makes it completely plausible that it was Josephus who was wrong, and that Luke is the one who is correct. That's the irony of all this - you are arguing that Luke was the one trying to "fit" the history to his theology, while the evidence shows that it plausibly was Josephus who might have been the one trying to "fit" the data.
There's no doubt that the only reason you believe Josephus to be the accurate, honest historian regarding the census while Luke is not.... is because Luke's account is in the Bible, while Josephus' is not.
It’s very easy to see how christianity spread so fast when the first christians were literally famous for digging these infants out of trash and the streets to save them. https://t.co/Aifb2qAJu1 pic.twitter.com/ZNtEWmuskb
— … (@ghostnjon) March 4, 2026
TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:TexasScientist said:Sam Lowry said:TexasScientist said:Sam Lowry said:TexasScientist said:Johnny Bear said:TexasScientist said:LIB,MR BEARS said:TexasScientist said:
Was the purported Roman Census that brought Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem invented history?
let me cast this article before you.
It is certainly not "empirical" evidence. Perhaps it shouldn't be empirical evidence you seek though.
https://crossexamined.org/really-census-time-caesar-augustus/
Seems to me they are grasping at straws in this explanation.
Seems to me you are constantly grasping at straws to justify your atheistic beliefs.
The question is not whether there were ever Roman censuses, but rather was there one during the times of Jesus's conflicting birth naratives, much less was there ever one that required the residents of the Roman Empire to travel and register at the locality of their ancestral homes (1,000 years prior)? Of course the answer is there was none - nada nunca.
Luke was a smart guy and would have understood that. So would his audience. There's no reason to infer such a mass uprooting from the text. More likely Joseph simply owned property in Bethlehem. Nor do we even know that the registration mentioned in the gospel was a census. There were other types of registration, e.g. loyalty oaths, that were required of Roman subjects from time to time.
Luke 2:1-3 records that Caesar Augustus ordered a census (or enrollment) of the Roman world. Luke 2 1 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while[a] Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register.
It was some kind of registration. There's no indication that everyone returned to their ancestral homes of 1,000 years before. Luke's audience would have found that idea as absurd as you do.
4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.
I agree, Luke 1:4 is absurd. Roman censuses generally didn't require uprooting families to travel around to the town of family origin. They registered with a Roman Censor where they lived. There is no record of any census during this time in Herod's reign. There is no historical evidence to support Luke's claim. It's clear Luke's message is a theological message for the purpose of getting Jesus out of Nazareth into Bethlehem in order to fit Luke's prophetical narrative about a Messiah.
Luke's account IS historical evidence of a census during the reign of Herod. The only reason people feel he got it wrong is because it conflicts with what the historian Josephus recorded. But there is plenty of evidence that it was Josephus who was in error, rather than Luke. Historians have noted that Josephus had made similar chronological errors before with other historical events.
And there isn't any historical evidence that families were NOT required to return to their hometown for a census during the reign of Herod in Judea at the time. So to argue that Roman censuses "generally" didn't require it therefore it didn't happen is arguing from silence. Roman law allowed each province to conduct affairs as they saw fit, and Herod could have conducted a census under Roman direction which required everyone to return to their homeland. In 104 AD, the prefect in Egypt, while under Roman rule, did exactly this - he ordered a census requiring everyone to return to their homeland. (Deissman, Adolf. "Light from the Ancient East. (Classic Reprint)." Forgotten Books, 2016. pp 270-272)Your Egyptian example is an instance where people returned for a census, specifically to report on their property holdings, not ancestral towns for tribal registration. I don't believe most historians would speculate a Roman legate like Quirinius would conduct a 4 BC census in Herod's kingdom, since Judea was a client kingdom, not a Roman province, until 6 AD.
The Egyptian census under Roman rule literally proves you wrong. You argued that a census would NOT have people return to their home towns because it would not be logistically feasible to do so. What real difference would it make whether it was for a census, or a "tribal registration"? Is that really your argument??
You: "I don't believe most historians would speculate a Roman legate like Quirinius would conduct a census in a client kingdom." Neither would most historians speculate that an event did NOT happen merely on the grounds of a lack of evidence outside the Bible, as you are doing. In fact, you're doing a lot more than just speculating, you're asserting it as fact. However, actual historical facts prove you wrong again - Tacitus records in his Annals 6.41 an incident where the Roman Empire under Tiberius conducted a census for tax purposes upon the client kingdom of Archelaeus of Cilicia, causing a revolt from a tribe known as the ****ae, thus requiring Rome to send a unit of legionaries to defeat them. Thus, it would hardly be wild speculation at all to suggest Rome could have conducted a similar census in a client kingdom like Judea as well.
TexasScientist said:Sam Lowry said:TexasScientist said:Sam Lowry said:TexasScientist said:Sam Lowry said:TexasScientist said:Johnny Bear said:TexasScientist said:LIB,MR BEARS said:TexasScientist said:
Was the purported Roman Census that brought Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem invented history?
let me cast this article before you.
It is certainly not "empirical" evidence. Perhaps it shouldn't be empirical evidence you seek though.
https://crossexamined.org/really-census-time-caesar-augustus/
Seems to me they are grasping at straws in this explanation.
Seems to me you are constantly grasping at straws to justify your atheistic beliefs.
The question is not whether there were ever Roman censuses, but rather was there one during the times of Jesus's conflicting birth naratives, much less was there ever one that required the residents of the Roman Empire to travel and register at the locality of their ancestral homes (1,000 years prior)? Of course the answer is there was none - nada nunca.
Luke was a smart guy and would have understood that. So would his audience. There's no reason to infer such a mass uprooting from the text. More likely Joseph simply owned property in Bethlehem. Nor do we even know that the registration mentioned in the gospel was a census. There were other types of registration, e.g. loyalty oaths, that were required of Roman subjects from time to time.
Luke 2:1-3 records that Caesar Augustus ordered a census (or enrollment) of the Roman world. Luke 2 1 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while[a] Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register.
It was some kind of registration. There's no indication that everyone returned to their ancestral homes of 1,000 years before. Luke's audience would have found that idea as absurd as you do.
4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.
I agree, Luke 1:4 is absurd. Roman censuses generally didn't require uprooting families to travel around to the town of family origin. They registered with a Roman Censor where they lived. There is no record of any census during this time in Herod's reign. There is no historical evidence to support Luke's claim. It's clear Luke's message is a theological message for the purpose of getting Jesus out of Nazareth into Bethlehem in order to fit Luke's prophetical narrative about a Messiah.
You're assuming it was a census. You're also assuming a census would have been completed in all parts of the empire in a single year. Neither is necessarily true. The mention of the house of David is of course there for theological reasons, to emphasize that Joseph was of that lineage. It doesn't mean he went back to a place he'd never lived just because of his ancestry. Property and ancestry were closely intertwined in his culture. He most likely went to register in Bethlehem because his main holdings were there (which was because he belonged to the house and lineage of David).
You're assuming it wasn't. I've never seen or heard of there being any required registrations other than a census by Rome during that period inf and around the turn of the century. But you are right, it is there for theological reasons only. The idea that Joseph (Jesus family) were propertied gentry with substantial holdings is a reach and doesn't square with the text of the Gospels. I'm not familiar with the house and lineage of David being wealthy 1,000 years later.
I don't think he was particularly wealthy. Otherwise he wouldn't have been plying a trade in Nazareth for years at a time. I'm just saying he likely held property in Bethlehem because of his ancestry.
"The past is a foreign country"
As much as I love Troy, at some point we need a film adaptation of the Iliad that really captures the strangeness and brutality of the archaic Greek world. https://t.co/JbbDCDd50M
— RAW EGG NATIONALIST (@Babygravy9) March 8, 2026