Is the Bible Totally reliable ? The Nativity

I don't have time to offer extra-biblical evidence, but the idea there could be 2 censuses is entirely reasonable.Your argument reminds me a bit of an old friend that insisted the Bible was inaccurate because in one story Jesus fed 3000 and another 5000. He never realized that both stories are in one gospel as well, and that such events can happen more than once.Your argument is better, but it's basically an argument based on a lack of evidence. You think there should be some historical reference, and maybe there was, but that does not mean it survived, or that it was an important enough event to be recorded by Josephus.But another provocative answer could be both are true, and history is not static.

I haven't really looked into it in depth, but I thought the 2 reigns of Quintaris had merit when I looked at this some years back.Maybe you are right on Ceaser ordering the census, but I'd like to see some evidence there. I am not so sure he could not order a census of those that paid tribute as well, or something like that.

Actually, there is evidence for someone being governor twice during that time so you are incorrect to state 0 evidence.The Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke

Someone had to be governor. The details match Quintarsis. So I consider it decent evidence, considering that we don't exactly have full records.On the Herod's jurisdiction thing, you have a point, but not knowing myself how the relationship between Rome and Herod was, I am not sure it is valid.But I haven't really looked into it all yet.

I think the strongest evidence of 2 censuses is probably from Luke/Acts itself, if what you are saying it true. These books are 2 volumes of the same book, and probably should have been placed together to make that clear.If Luke refers to the later census in Acts, then he is clearly referring to an earlier census.If that's his intent, I think it's somewhat absurd to doubt Luke based on the idea that Josephus did not refer to it so it cannot be true. That's an argument from lack of evidence to try to discount someone that has been very accurate in terms of historical facts.What would be the motive for Luke to lie here and fabricate an earlier census if it did not exist?I'd say more likely there was an earlier census, just as Luke claimed.

Ramos, considering Rome appointed the "king", I'd say Rome could order a census in Herod's kingdom just any time it pleased them.That argument just does not hold water when you consider that Herod's rule was not totally independent, but rather he was allowed to be king within the Roman Empire of an area under Rome's control.

You fail to realize the nature of historical evidence. Basically, you are discounting Luke's record by claiming it is incorrect on the basis Josephus did not mention a 2nd census.Sorry, but we've been down this path before, over and over again, where skeptics discounted Luke, and were proven wrong.An argument from silence is no real argument.If Luke says it, then we have no reason to doubt the writer.What would his motive to lie be here?

PaulK, the problem is considering it a reasonable assessment that LUke refers to the later census, and for 2 reasons.Luke 1:5 indicates that Herod was king when God began dealing with Zecharias in the Temple about John the Baptist and struck him dumb for unbelief. Now, it does not say how long he could not speak exactly, but if you read the passage, it says "after a time" Elizabeth conceived and "hid herself 5 months."It's hard to say, but there is no mention of Herod dying. The implication is he was probably still king, although it does not exactly say.Luke refers to the later taxation for sure in Acts.So the question is whether Luke is referring to a cencus taken while Herod was king?The language raises this same issue. The KJV reads "this taxing was first made when.."Well, if there was just one major taxation period, the famous one resulting in revolts, which Luke refers to in Acts, then why the "first made" comment?Without additional records, it is unreasonable to assert there was not an earlier census. Luke seems to suggest there was a census in Herod's day. He does not explicitly state that, but it is suggested by the text, and considering Luke is itself part of valid historical record, as much as Josephus, it is just a guess to say that Luke and Matthew contradict one another.

One tidbit; Josephus was not entirely accurate in his dates and such, especially concerning Herod.

The evidence and arguments presented there are pretty convincing. Thanks for posting that. He does a good job, for instance, of showing that the census of 6 AD would probably not require a trip to Bethlehem since that would cross jurisdictional districts, and also answers Ramos' objection in showing that the Romans did tax and do censuses in vassal states such as Herod's "kingdom."

PaulK, we don't have a lot of records from the time period, and those we do have, like Josephus, contain errors.So to argue that because we don't have evidence, other than Matthew and Luke, for this census, with the idea that Matthew is wrong is just a stretch.We don't have but so much evidence, at all. We don't have evidence, imo, that there was not an earlier census.It seems reasonable to me to think there was. Take the first point on Herod. If Luke meant the later Herod, his jurisdiction did not include both Bethlehem and Nazareth so it that argues against that. Imo, that's a pretty strong argument against the 6 AD census being the one Luke referred to since the argument is that the Romans would not involve 2 separate jurisdictions in that manner. By saying they had to return to their birth-place, that indicates an earlier census.I admit I haven't studied this out completely, but if there is no evidence in the 6 AD census requiring travel to one's birthplace, then that would be evidence Luke was not referring to that census, right?

We have records, but we don't have complete recrords.For example, it is not even clear when Herod died. Most affix his date based on a lunar eclipse, but the 4BC eclipse was not the only one.There is debate on Herod's death, and Josephus who is used highly here makes a number of mistakes in the years he gives concerning Herod.So when the quality of available records creates doubt as to when the king died, more mundane matters such as taxes and the census are understandably less clear.

He mentions Roman citizens, but he expressly states as well that the census is of "the people." That sure sounds like more than just Roman citizens to me.